Paul A. Wesbecher v. Stephen D. Landaker;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
KV/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL A. WESBECHER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STEPHEN D. LANDAKER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-17051
D.C. No. 2:01-cv-02410-FCD-
DAD
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Paul A. Wesbecher appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force.
FILED
MAR 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KV/Research 08-17051 2
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Whitaker v.
Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Wesbecher’s
excessive force claim because a judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the
invalidity of his convictions, and Wesbecher offered no evidence that his
convictions have been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
(1994).
Defendant Landaker’s motion to supplement the record and motion for leave
to file a late brief are granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --