
    Joandark KASSAB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-56672.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed July 1, 2011.
    Joandark Kassab, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    Daniel F. Bamberg, Esquire, City Attorney’s Office, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joandark Kassab appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from the search of her store. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Kassab’s § 1983 claims were Heckbarred. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (a constitutional claim that necessarily implies the invalidity of a conviction cannot be brought under § 1983 unless the conviction has already been invalidated); Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 611 (9th Cir.2011), petition for cert. filed, 79 U.S.L.W. 3648 (U.S. Apr. 28, 2011) (No. 10-1343) (a claim alleging an illegal search and seizure of evidence that was used to secure a conviction necessarily implies the invalidity of that conviction).

We construe the judgment to be without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (stating that dismissals under Heck are without prejudice).

Kassab’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We do not consider issues not properly raised before the district court. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     