Opinion
No. 18-55548
02-22-2021
DARRYL BURGHARDT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ERIK SHEAR, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01986-JAK-DFM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
California state prisoner Darryl Burghardt appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process violation from the photographic identification process used in his arrest and conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); 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 Burghardt's action as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because success on his claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, and Burghardt failed to allege facts sufficient to show that his conviction had been invalidated. See id. at 486-87 (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.