Patterson

MEMORANDUM *

Steve Patterson appeals the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the State of California, the County of Kern and Kern County Superior Court Judge Romero Moench. Patterson alleges that Judge Moench violated his constitutional rights during the prosecution of his misdemeanor violations of the California Vehicle Code. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . After de novo review, Guerrero v. Gates, 357 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir.2004), we affirm.

Patterson claims that Judge Moench, the judge who presided over his criminal prosecution, refused to accept Patterson’s proposed plea bargain unless Patterson withdrew the lawsuit he had filed against Moench. Patterson argues that Judge Moench’s act of rejecting the proposed plea bargain was improper in the context of his plea proceeding and violated his right to a fair trial based on the merits of his case.

A judgment in favor of Patterson would necessarily imply that his conviction and sentence were invalid. Thus, Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), would typically bar Patterson’s suit. However, because Patterson is no longer in custody and the brevity of his…