Kareem Muhammad v. City of Bakersfield;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAREEM MUHAMMAD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-17487
D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01199-JLT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Jennifer L. Thurston, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted December 14, 2016***
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Kareem Muhammad appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force, unlawful arrest,
FILED
DEC 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

and related state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Muhammad’s action was barred
by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because a judgment in Muhammad’s
favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his criminal conviction under
California Penal Code § 148(a)(1). See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 (§ 1983 action that
necessarily implies the invalidity of plaintiff’s conviction must be dismissed unless
the conviction has been invalidated); Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 699 n.5
(9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[A] jury’s verdict necessarily determines the lawfulness
of the officers’ actions throughout the whole course of the defendant’s conduct,
and any action alleging the use of excessive force would necessarily imply the
invalidity of his conviction.” (citations, internal quotation marks, and emphasis
omitted)); Yount v. City of Sacramento, 183 P.3d 471, 484 (Cal. 2008) (California
applies Heck principles to state law claims).
We construe the district court’s summary judgment as dismissing the action
without prejudice. See Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1025 (9th Cir. 2015)
(dismissals under Heck are without prejudice).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --