Timothy Lee Bludworth v. City of Stockton;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY LEE BLUDWORTH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF STOCKTON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-15845
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02137-TLN-
CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Timothy Lee Bludworth appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action related to his
criminal conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447
FILED
DEC 4 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

(9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bludworth’s action as Heck-barred
because success on Bludworth’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of
his conviction. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (holding that,
“in order to recover damages for an 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 reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or
called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus”).
AFFIRMED.
14-15845 2

-- 2 of 2 --