Scott Anthony Backus v. JAMIE GISSEL, Mesa Police Officer 16414

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SCOTT ANTHONY BACKUS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMIE GISSEL, Mesa Police Officer
#16414,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-17660
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02320-GMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
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.
FILED
NOV 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17660 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --