KAREEM MUHAMMAD V. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, No. 14-17487 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KAREEM MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 14-17487 D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01199-JLT v. MEMORANDUM* CITY OF BAKERSFIELD; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted December 14, 2016*** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Kareem Muhammad appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force, unlawful arrest, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). and related state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly concluded that Muhammad’s action was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because a judgment in Muhammad’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his criminal conviction under California Penal Code § 148(a)(1). See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 (§ 1983 action that necessarily implies the invalidity of plaintiff’s conviction must be dismissed unless the conviction has been invalidated); Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 699 n.5 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[A] jury’s verdict necessarily determines the lawfulness of the officers’ actions throughout the whole course of the defendant’s conduct, and any action alleging the use of excessive force would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction.” (citations, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)); Yount v. City of Sacramento, 183 P.3d 471, 484 (Cal. 2008) (California applies Heck principles to state law claims). We construe the district court’s summary judgment as dismissing the action without prejudice. See Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1025 (9th Cir. 2015) (dismissals under Heck are without prejudice). 2 We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.