Tripati

MEMORANDUM ***

Anant Kumar Tripati appeals the district court’s decision dismissing his pro se civil rights action against Maricopa County and various Maricopa County officials. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.

I

The district court correctly held that Tripati’s federal claims — only one of which he asserts on appeal — were barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Tripati argues that the district court erred by holding that Tripati’s illegal search and seizure claim was barred by Heck . If “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,” the complaint must be dismissed. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 . Because evidence obtained in the allegedly illegal search and seizure was used for his conviction, the district court did not err in barring his Fourth Amendment claim under Heck. See Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir.2000) (interpreting Heck as precluding any such claim).

II

As to the non-federal claims,…