Shannon Lee Starr v. Oakland Police Department

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHANNON LEE STARR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-16447
D.C. No. 5:15-cv-00806-RMW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Shannon Lee Starr appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deprivation of the right to a fair
trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-16447
Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal for failure to state
a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th
Cir. 2007) (dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Starr’s action as Heck-barred because
success on Starr’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction
or sentence, and Starr failed to allege that his conviction had been invalidated. See
Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87 (if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily
imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . . the complaint must be
dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has
already been invalidated”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --