Robert Stewart, Jr. v. Joseph Welty

450 F. App'x 684
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided September 29, 2011·No. 10-16576·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Robert Stewart appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 888, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging that his civil rights were violated during his criminal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 218 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Stewart’s action because his allegations against the United States regarding his criminal proceedings necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, and Stewart has not shown that his conviction has been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (§ 1983 complaint in which “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence ... must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”); Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir.1996) (applying Heck to actions brought against federal actors). 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

Robert Stewart, Jr. v. Joseph Welty, 450 F. App'x 684 (9th Cir. 2011).

450 F. App'x 684 (Robert Stewart, Jr. v. Joseph Welty) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Peele v. Cunningham (In Re Texas Securities, Inc.)
218 F.3d 443 (Fifth Circuit, 2000)
Heck v. Humphrey
512 U.S. 477 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Raymond Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa
49 F.3d 583 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)