Leo Masters v. City of Bellflower Michael J. Eagan Steven King, John & Jane Does 1 Through 10

98 F.3d 1346 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Leo MASTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF BELLFLOWER; Michael J. Eagan; Steven King, John & Jane Does 1 through 10, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-55921. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 7, 1996. * Decided Oct. 9, 1996. Before: BEEZER, KOZINSKI, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Leo Masters appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. 3 Masters contends that defendant King's action in enforcing the City of Bellflower animal control ordinance violated his constitutional rights because that ordinance is inconsistent with the general laws of the State of California. This contention lacks merit. 4 In order to recover damages for an allegedly unlawful conviction, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or…