The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2026
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY L. BROWN, No. 26-563
D.C. No. 3:25-cv-06667-WHO
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO; BROOKE JENKINS,
District Attorney, City and County of San
Francisco; ROB BONTA, Attorney General
for the State of California; FLOYD
ANDREWS; ALLISON MACBETH;
ALEX BERSTEIN; GREGORY OTT,
Assistant Attorney General; LISA OTT;
CLAUDIA PHILLIPS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2026**
Before: CANBY, BENNETT, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
California state prisoner Gregory L. Brown appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional claims in connection with his arrest, conviction, and sentencing in
state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th
Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Brown’s action as barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because success on Brown’s claims would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, and Brown has not
demonstrated that his conviction or sentence has been invalidated. See Heck, 512
U.S. at 486-87 (holding that 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”).
Contrary to Brown’s contention, the district court was required to screen
Brown’s complaint despite his payment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
(requiring screening of complaints in civil actions “in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity” or an officer or employee thereof).
AFFIRMED.
2 26-563