MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Jose W. Yepez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging that a police detective and a prosecutor engaged in misconduct that resulted in Yepez’s conviction and sentence to life imprisonment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. *271 § 1915A, Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Yepez’s complaint because a judgment in favor of Yepez would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, and Yepez has not shown that his conviction or sentence has been previously invalidated. See Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996) (order).

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

Yepez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.