Shannon Starr v. Oakland Police Department

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHANNON LEE STARR, No. 15-16447 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:15-cv-00806-RMW v. MEMORANDUM* OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Shannon Lee Starr appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deprivation of the right to a fair trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Starr’s action as Heck-barred because success on Starr’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, and Starr failed to allege that his conviction had been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87 (if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”). AFFIRMED. 2 15-16447