Mocaby v. Roe

Full title: Roy E. MOCABY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mike ROE; William B. Dillon…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 22, 1999

199 F.3d 1332 (9th Cir. 1999)

Opinion

199 F.3d 1332 (9th Cir. 1999) Roy E. MOCABY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mike ROE; William B. Dillon, Payette County Official; Phillip B. Heersink, Payette County Official; John Livingston, Payette County Official; Randal Cosner, New Plymouth Official; Bruce Looselip Pinson; Cris Seims, No. 168, Emmett City Officer; Ralph B. Erb, Emmett City Prosecutor, Defendants-Appellees. No. 98-35910. D.C. No. CV 98-00022-BLW. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit October 22, 1999

Submitted October 18, 1999 ²

2 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant's request for oral argument is denied.

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding.

Before BROWNING, WALLACE, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ¹

1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Roy E. Mocaby appeals pro se the judgment entered subsequent to the district court's Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Steckman v. Hart, 143 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Mocaby's claims for damages concerning his two convictions arising out of his arrests for drunk driving. Mocaby's claims necessarily imply the invalidity of his convictions and Mocaby has not demonstrated that his criminal convictions have been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). We construe the district court's dismissal to be without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir.1995).

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mocaby's state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Binder v. Gillespie, 184 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir.1999).

Mocaby's motion to remand is denied. Mocaby's petition for rehearing is denied without prejudice for re-submission upon his receipt of the memorandum disposition.

AFFIRMED.