DAVID CRAMER V. CITY OF AUBURN, No. 16-15234 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID CRAMER, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15234 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00462-KJM-AC v. MEMORANDUM* CITY OF AUBURN; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. David Cramer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with his arrest and prosecution for battery. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm. * 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). The district court properly dismissed Cramer’s claims alleging false arrest and imprisonment as Heck-barred because success on Cramer’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, and Cramer failed to show that his conviction had been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. 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”); see also Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that Heck barred false arrest and false imprisonment claims under § 1983 until conviction was invalidated). AFFIRMED. 2 16-15234

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.