Lockyer

MEMORANDUM **

Gregory McKinney, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, among other things, that the defendants violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by prosecuting him for battery without probable cause. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo dismissals under both 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

McKinney’s action fails because it alleged that he was prosecuted without probable cause, and a favorable judgment would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction. See Smithart v. Towery, 79 F.3d 951, 952 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (“There is no question that Heck bars [the plaintiff’s] claims that defendants lacked probable cause to arrest him and brought unfounded criminal charges against him.”). McKinney may not bring such an…