Theron N. Lynch v. Alameda County;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THERON N. LYNCH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALAMEDA COUNTY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15192
D.C. No. 4:08-cv-05424-PJH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Theron N. Lynch, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the abstract
of judgment for his sentence is incorrect and requires him to serve his full
sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
FILED
OCT 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-15192 2
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action as Heck-barred because a
judgment in Lynch’s favor “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his . . .
sentence,” and Lynch has not demonstrated that his sentence has already been
invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --