*1 Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

David Cramer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with his arrest and prosecution for battery. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Whitaker v. Garcetti , 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm. *2 The district court properly dismissed Cramer’s claims alleging false arrest and imprisonment as Heck -barred because success on Cramer’s claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, and Cramer failed to show that his conviction had been invalidated. See Heck , 512 U.S. at 486-87 (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”); see also Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park , 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that Heck barred false arrest and false imprisonment claims under § 1983 until conviction was invalidated).

AFFIRMED.

2 16-15234

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

[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).