Opinion
No. 08-17051.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed March 25, 2010.
Paul Anthony Wesbecher, San Francisco, CA, pro se.
David J. Van Dam, Esquire, Leo Herman Schuering, Jr., Schuering Zimmerman Scully Tweedy Doyle, LLP, Bruce A. Kilday, Cori Rae Sarno, Esquire, Angelo, Kilday and Kilduff, A Law Partnership, Sacramento, CA, Allison Goldsmith, Office of the Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:01-cv-02410-FCD-DAD.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Paul A. Wesbecher appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Wesbecher's excessive force claim because a judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his convictions, and Wesbecher offered no evidence that his convictions have been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).
Defendant Landaker's motion to supplement the record and motion for leave to file a late brief are granted.