MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Darryl Burghardt appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process violation from the photographic identification process used in his arrest and conviction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Burghardts action as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because success on his claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, and Burghardt failed to allege facts sufficient to show that his conviction had been invalidated. See id. 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”).
AFFIRMED.