Luciano Ramirez-Salazar v. David J. Derksen

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** Ramirez-Salazar 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUCIANO RAMIREZ-SALAZAR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVID J. DERKSEN,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-16383
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00764-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kendall J. Newman, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted June 10, 2013***
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Luciano Ramirez-Salazar, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
FILED
JUN 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-16383 2
violated his civil rights in connection with his arrest and criminal prosecution. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of an
action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213
F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Barren v. Harrington,
152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We may affirm on any ground
supported by the record. Herring v. FDIC, 82 F.3d 282, 284 (9th Cir. 1996). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ramirez-Salazar’s action as barred by
Heck v. Humprey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because a judgment in Ramirez-Salazar’s
favor on his claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his criminal
conviction for drug and firearm possession and illegal reentry, and judicially
noticeable court records show that Ramirez-Salazar’s conviction has not been
invalidated. See id. at 486; see also Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir.
2012) (in evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint, a district court may consider
matters properly subject to judicial notice”).
Dismissal of Ramirez-Salazar’s state law claims was proper because
California applies Heck principles to state law claims. See Yount v. City of
Sacramento, 183 P.3d 471, 484 (Cal. 2008).

-- 2 of 3 --

12-16383 3
We construe the judgment as a dismissal without prejudice. See Trimble v.
City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --