# Brown v. City and County of San Francisco

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · June 29, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11349268

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 29, 2026
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11349268

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11349268. Public record. Not legal advice.