PER CURIAM.
Charles Alexander/Ryahim (Ryahim) appeals the district court's preservice dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Ryahim also filed a motion requesting our panel review a videotape of his jury trial in another civil case.
The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Upon de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (explaining that an appellate court reviews de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)), we conclude dismissal was proper because a judgment in Ryahim's favor on his conspiracy claim would imply the invalidity of his conviction, and Ryahim did not allege his conviction had been overturned. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (ruling that, when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether the judgment would necessarily imply invalidity of the conviction and, if it would, must dismiss the case if plaintiff cannot demonstrate that conviction has already been invalidated); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489-90, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (concluding a state prisoner challenging a conviction on federal constitutional grounds is limited to habeas corpus); Swan v. Barbadoro, 520 F.3d 24, 25-26 (1st Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (declaring, where a judgment in plaintiff's favor would impugn the validity of his conviction, the plaintiff could not circumvent a Heck bar by bringing claims under RICO).
We deny Ryahim's pending motion, and we affirm.