Case Name: Daryl Dwight GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Antonio VILLARAIGOZA, Mayor of Los Angeles; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-23
Citations: 310 F. App'x 133
Docket Number: No. 07-56035
Parties: Daryl Dwight GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Antonio VILLARAIGOZA, Mayor of Los Angeles; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 310
Pages: 133–133

Head Matter:
Daryl Dwight GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Antonio VILLARAIGOZA, Mayor of Los Angeles; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-56035.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
Filed Jan. 23, 2009.
Daryl Dwight Gray, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Daryl Dwight Gray, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A his civil rights action as barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because a judgment in Gray's favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of Gray's conviction, and Gray failed to allege that his conviction has been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gray's request for appointment of counsel. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991).
Gray's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.