
    Daniel F. BORDEN, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. GAUTIER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-17822.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Filed April 27, 2012.
    Daniel F. Borden, Sr., Soledad, CA, pro se.
    Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Daniel F. Borden, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging malicious prosecution and other claims related to his conviction. We review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Borden’s action because it appears from the face of the complaint that the action is Heck-barred. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (applying “the hoary principle that civil tort actions are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments ... to § 1983 damages actions that necessarily require the plaintiff to prove the unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement”).

Borden’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Borden’s request to waive copies is granted. All other pending motions and requests are denied.

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