
    Dana Lydell SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of IDAHO; Governor State of Idaho; Attorney for Governor State of Idaho; Attorney General of the State of Idaho; Minidoka County, Idaho, the Sheriffs Office and County Officials; Minicassia Public Defenders, State of Idaho; Idaho Department of Corrections; Matt Elson, Detective, West Valley City Police Department, Utah; James Wright, Lieutenant, West Valley City Police Department, Utah; Randy White, Chief of Police, Rupert City, Idaho; Dan Price, Owner/Investigator of Payless Car Sales; Dennis James, Owner/Investigator of Payless Car sales; Jason D. Walker, Prosecuting Attorney, Minidoka County, State of Idaho; Nicole Canon, Prosecuting Attorney, Minidoka County, State of Idaho; Stan Holloway, Prosecuting Attorney, Minidoka County, State of Idaho; Matilda Ortiz, Presentence Investigator; Rupert City Idaho Mayor; Joshua Johnston, Defendants-Appellees.
    
      No. 09-4155.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Feb. 3, 2010.
    Dana Lydell Smith, Boise, ID, pro se.
    Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

HARRIS L. HARTZ, Circuit Judge.

Dana Lydell Smith appeals the dismissal of his civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States District Court for the District of Utah ruled that Smith’s claim for damages must be dismissed under the doctrine set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); venue was improper in Utah; and the complaint did not allege sufficient facts to justify injunctive relief. We affirm.

On appeal Mr. Smith does not argue that his claim can survive the Heck doctrine. Instead, he asks us to reject the doctrine. For example, he states: “The Question which is now asserted by this Appellant is Does the Ruling by the Supreme Court Violate, the initial Foundation and statute by Dismissing the cases Put before the Courts when an [sic] Prisoner is suing Parties for Damages and that suit would Render the underlying conviction Moot.” Aplt. Br. at 10. The conclusion of his brief states in part: “The Heck Bar and other case law which is in direct contradiction to the Civil Rights Act must be changed to uphold the integrity of the Constitution.” Id. at 15. Of course, we cannot overrule the Supreme Court’s decision. We therefore affirm the district court’s ruling under Heck.

To the extent that Mr. Smith’s claim for injunctive relief is not barred by Heck, we AFFIRM the district court’s ruling dismissing that claim for substantially the reasons set forth by the district court. We grant Mr. Smith’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and remind him to continue making payments until all his fees are paid in full. 
      
       After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
     