Case Name: Wesley Wayne AUSTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lawrence G. WASDEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-20
Citations: 707 F. App'x 903
Docket Number: No. 17-35048
Parties: Wesley Wayne AUSTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lawrence G. WASDEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 903–903

Head Matter:
Wesley Wayne AUSTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lawrence G. WASDEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-35048
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 18, 2017
Filed December 20, 2017
Wesley Wayne Austin, 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
Federal prisoner Wesley Wayne Austin appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims arising from his state court conviction. 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)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Austin's action as Heck-barred because success on the claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his sentence, and Austin 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 be 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.