Case Name: Daniel Leroy TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bernie GIUSTO, Sheriff of Multnomah County, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 356 F. App'x 944
Docket Number: No. 08-35830
Parties: Daniel Leroy TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bernie GIUSTO, Sheriff of Multnomah County, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 356
Pages: 944–945

Head Matter:
Daniel Leroy TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bernie GIUSTO, Sheriff of Multnomah County, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-35830.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Daniel Leroy Turner, Vancouver, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
David N. Blankfeld, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Daniel Leroy Turner appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging improper delay in his arraignment and a violation of his right to a speedy trial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1198, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
Because a judgment in Turner's favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, the district court properly dismissed the action. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). However, the dismissal under Heck should have been without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir.1995).
Accordingly, we remand to the district court for the limited purpose of entering dismissal without prejudice.
Turner's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Turner shall bear his own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.