Graves-Bey v. City & County of San Francisco
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Rodney Alexander Graves-Bey, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from his arrest, charge, conviction, and sentencing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011), and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Cigna Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Polaris Pictures Corp., 159 F.3d 412, 418 (9th Cir. 1998), We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Graves-Bey’s claims for damages as Heck-barred because success on these claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence and Graves-Bey failed to allege facts demonstrating that his conviction or sentence has been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (the district court must dismiss a damages action, which, if successful, would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction, absent a showing that the conviction has been overturned).