Darryl Burghardt v. Erik Shear

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARRYL BURGHARDT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ERIK SHEAR,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-55548
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01986-JAK-DFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Darryl Burghardt appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process
violation from the photographic identification process used in his arrest and
conviction. 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
FEB 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-55548
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Burghardt’s action as barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because success on his claim would necessarily
imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, and Burghardt failed to allege
facts sufficient to show that his conviction had been invalidated. See id. 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 --