MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Henry M. Mitchell, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights action alleging a conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Mitchell’s action as Hec/c-barred because success on the merits of his claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of his con *691 viction or sentence, and Mitchell failed to allege that his conviction has been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (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 write of habeas corpus”); McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1097 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2004) (Heck “applies equally” to claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1985).

AFFIRMED.