Cleveland v. King County Police
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Edgar Cleveland, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484-85 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), as well as the district court’s denial of leave to amend his complaint and denial of his motion for appointment of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Cleveland’s constitutional claims alleging wrongful search and seizure were barred by Heck. See Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir.2000) (holding 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging illegal search and seizure did not accrue until criminal charges were dismissed or conviction was overturned). Heck does not allow for an attack on the seizure of property or person even where, as here, the plaintiff plead guilty to a lesser charge than the charge for which the arrest warrant was issued. A successful outcome in this case would necessarily be “fundamentally inconsistent” with the facts underlying his confinement and criminal conviction. See Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam).