Jose Yepez v. Melinda Haag , 443 F. App'x 270 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 15 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE W. YEPEZ, No. 10-55492
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-08550-SVW-
RNB
v.
MELINDA HAAG, Asst. U.S. Attorney; et MEMORANDUM *
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Jose W. Yepez appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that a police
*
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).
detective and a prosecutor engaged in misconduct that resulted in Yepez’s
conviction and sentence to life imprisonment. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Yepez’s complaint because a judgment
in favor of Yepez would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or
sentence, and Yepez has not shown that his conviction or sentence has been
previously invalidated. See Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996)
(order).
We construe the judgment to be without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of
Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).
Yepez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-55492