
    Lincoln D. FINLEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James FISCHER, Officer APD; Michael Agosta, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-15073
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 20, 2017
    Lincoln D. Finley, Jr., Pro Se
    Alan M. Cohen, Office of the City Attorney for the City of Alameda, Alameda, CA, Clifford F. Campbell, Jarvis Fay Doporto & Qibson, LLP, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lincoln D. Finley, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims pertaining to his arrest and prosecution for driving under the influence of alcohol. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Finley’s claims alleging a false arrest and detention without probable cause as Heck-barred because success on Finley’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, and Finley failed to show that his conviction had been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (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”). We treat the dismissal of these claims as being without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissals under Heck are without prejudice).

Finley’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     