
    Luciano RAMIREZ-SALAZAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David J. DERKSEN, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-16383.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 10, 2013.
    
    Filed June 17, 2013.
    Luciano Ramirez-Salazar, Forrest City, AR, pro se.
    Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luciano Ramirez-Salazar, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his civil rights in connection with his arrest and criminal prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Herring v. FDIC, 82 F.3d 282, 284 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ramirez-Salazar’s action as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because a judgment in Ramirez-Salazar’s favor on his claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his criminal conviction for drug and firearm possession and illegal reentry, and judicially noticeable court records show that Ramirez-Salazar’s conviction has not been invalidated. See id. at 486, 114 S.Ct. 2364; see also Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir.2012) (in evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint, a district court may consider matters properly subject to judicial notice”).

Dismissal of Ramirez-Salazar’s state law claims was proper because California applies Heck principles to state law claims. See Yount v. City of Sacramento, 43 Cal.4th 885, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 787, 183 P.3d 471, 484 (2008).

We construe the judgment as a dismissal without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam).

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