Thompson

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Thompson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials retaliated against him for cooperating with various government investigations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (reviewing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir.2001) (reviewing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal); Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1234 (9th Cir.2001) (reviewing judgment on the pleadings). We affirm.

Thompson contends that the district court improperly dismissed his retaliation claims. We disagree.

Thompson’s first amended complaint alleged, in part, that the defendants retaliated against him by charging him with false prison violations, depriving him of due process during prison disciplinary hearings, and facilitating denial of his parole. These claims were properly dismissed because a judgment in Thompson’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of the disciplinary sanctions and parole decision. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 , 117 S.Ct. 1584 , 137…