Gilligan
Gilligan v. City of Santa Rosa
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
John E. Gilligan, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s partial dismissal and partial sum *476 mary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging false arrest, filing false charges, incarceration without probable cause, retaliation and municipal liability arising from those claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.
Because Gilligan failed to demonstrate that his underlying conviction had been invalidated, the district court properly dismissed Gilligan’s claims for false arrest, filing false charges, incarceration without probable cause, and municipal liability. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gilligan’s retaliation claim because Gilligan failed to demonstrate that the Santa Rosa Police Department issued a warning bulletin about him because he exercised a constitutionally protected right. See Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310 , 1314 (9th Cir.1989).