22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4a9,MEMORANDUM Shannon Lee Starr appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deprivation of the right to a fair trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); 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)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Starr’s action as Heck-barred because success on Starr’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, and Starr failed to allege that his conviction had been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 (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 36-3.24:T4d6,

MEMORANDUM

Shannon Lee Starr appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deprivation of the right to a fair trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); 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)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Starr’s action as Heck-barred because success on Starr’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, and Starr failed to allege that his conviction had been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 (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.