Summary
affirming district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's § 1983 claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution "as Heck-barred" because success on those claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of the plaintiff's arrest and conviction.
Summary of this case from Gregory v. City of CaseyOpinion
No. 10-17660 D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02320-GMS
11-29-2012
SCOTT ANTHONY BACKUS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMIE GISSEL, Mesa Police Officer #16414, Defendant - Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Scott Anthony Backus appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
The district court dismissed Backus's § 1983 claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution as Heck-barred. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (a constitutional claim that necessarily implies the invalidity of a conviction cannot be brought under § 1983 unless the conviction has already been invalidated); Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 611 (9th Cir. 2011) (a claim alleging an illegal search and seizure of evidence that was used to secure a conviction necessarily implies the invalidity of that conviction).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Backus's request for a waiver of requirements is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.