Robert Sanchez Lopez v. City of Phoenix;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT SANCHEZ LOPEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF PHOENIX; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-17165
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02511-GMS-
LOA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 21, 2015**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Robert Sanchez Lopez appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations in connection with his criminal trial and conviction. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
FILED
SEP 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lopez’s action as barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Success on the merits of his claims would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, and Lopez failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that either has been invalidated. See Wilkinson v.
Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 80-82 (2005) (a prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred if success
“would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration[,]”
unless “the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Heck, 512 U.S. at 479, 490 (§ 1983
suit alleging that prosecutors destroyed exculpatory evidence was barred);
Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 703 (9th Cir. 2003) (Heck barred claim of
conspiracy to bring false charges); Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d
374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (Heck barred false arrest and false
imprisonment claims until conviction was invalidated), abrogated on other
grounds by Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 397 (2007); Trimble v. City of Santa
Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 584-85 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (Sixth Amendment claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel is barred by Heck). We construe the district
court’s dismissal as without prejudice. See Trimble, 49 F.3d at 585.
13-17165 2

-- 2 of 3 --

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lopez’s request for
a stay. Lopez’s claim for false arrest was time-barred. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at
393-94 (a district court has the power to stay a civil action while related criminal
charges are pending); Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard
of review); see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542 (two-year statute of limitations for
personal injury actions); Wallace, 549 U.S. at 387-90, 397 (for § 1983 claims,
federal courts apply the forum state’s personal injury statute of limitations, and the
statute of limitations on a false arrest or false imprisonment claim “begins to run at
the time the claimant becomes detained pursuant to legal process”).
We reject Lopez’s arguments concerning tolling.
Because we affirm the dismissal as barred by Heck, we do not reach the
merits of Lopez’s claims.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
13-17165 3

-- 3 of 3 --