Case Name: Douglas Ray ARLEDGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADA COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-20
Citations: 706 F. App'x 908
Docket Number: No. 17-35113
Parties: Douglas Ray ARLEDGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADA COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 706
Pages: 908–909

Head Matter:
Douglas Ray ARLEDGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADA COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-35113
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 18, 2017
Filed December 20, 2017
Douglas Ray Arledge, Pro Se
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Former Idaho state prisoner Douglas Ray Arledge appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising out of state court criminal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Arledge's action as iiec/c-barred because success on his claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his sentence, and Arledge failed to show that his sentence has been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (explaining that if "a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence . the complaint must he dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.