NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EMANUEL L. FINCH, Sr., No. 15-35971
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-05305-RBL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DET. BRADLEY GRAHAM; DET.
CYNTHIA BROOKS,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Emanuel L. Finch, Sr. appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional claims arising from his arrest and interrogation. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hooper v. County of
*
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).
San Diego, 629 F.3d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Finch’s action on
the basis that it was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because
success on Finch’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of Finch’s
conviction or sentence, and Finch failed to prove that either has been invalidated.
See 512 U.S. at 486-87 (holding that, “in order to recover damages for allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions
whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” a plaintiff
must prove that the conviction or sentence has been invalidated).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Finch’s motion for
an extension to conduct discovery because Finch failed to show how allowing
discovery would have precluded summary judgment. See Tatum v. City and
County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth
standard of review and requiring a movant to “identify by affidavit the specific
facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would
preclude summary judgment”).
Finch’s request to submit the case on the briefs (Docket Entry No. 17) is
2 15-35971
granted. All other pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-35971