Mark Ticknor v. Hinsburg

481 F. App'x 391
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 25, 2012
Docket11-17644
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 481 F. App'x 391 (Mark Ticknor v. Hinsburg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mark Ticknor v. Hinsburg, 481 F. App'x 391 (9th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

*392 MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Mark Douglas Ticknor appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his civil rights in the course of his arrest and criminal prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because a judgment in Tiek-nor’s favor on his claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his criminal conviction for resisting arrest, and Ticknor failed to allege that this conviction has been invalidated. See id. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364.

We construe the judgment as a dismissal without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ames v. Tempe, City of
D. Arizona, 2023

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
481 F. App'x 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-ticknor-v-hinsburg-ca9-2012.