Case Name: Timothy Lee BLUDWORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF STOCKTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-04
Citations: 586 F. App'x 387
Docket Number: No. 14-15845
Parties: Timothy Lee BLUDWORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF STOCKTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 586
Pages: 387–388

Head Matter:
Timothy Lee BLUDWORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF STOCKTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-15845.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
Filed Dec. 4, 2014.
Timothy Lee Bludworth, Jamestown, CA, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, 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
California state prisoner Timothy Lee Bludworth appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action related to his criminal conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bludworth's action as Heck-barred because success on Bludworth's claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (holding that, "in order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid," a plaintiff must prove "that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.