
    Travis Irvin MIDDLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Raul VASQUEZ; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Rick Von Geldern; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Defendants.
    No. 13-56877.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 4, 2015.
    Travis Irvin Middleton, Santa Barbara, CA, pro se.
    Lisa Ann Rothstein, Deputy County Counsel, Santa' Barbara, CA, Laura K. Kim, Esquire, Musick, Peeler & Garrett, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellee.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Middleton's request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Travis Irvin Middleton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil rights violations related to his state court conviction for indecent exposure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Beets v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir.2012) (dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994)); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed as Heck-barred Middleton’s claims against the Santa Barbara County defendants because success on his claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, and Middleton failed to allege that his conviction has been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (holding that, “in order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” a plaintiff must prove “that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus”).

We do not consider the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of Middleton’s cause of action for sedition and of all claims against defendant Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.2003) (issues not argued on appeal are waived).

We reject Middleton’s contention that his constitutional rights were violated by the district court’s dismissal of his complaint.

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