United States v. 2020-08-12 | 19-35664 | ZAKEE SHAKIR V. RICHARD ADAMS | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZAKEE SHAKIR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RICHARD ADAMS, Police Officer in his
individual and official capacity; CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY, In its official capacity,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-35664

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01333-RSL

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 5, 2020
**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Zakee Shakir appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. JL Beverage Co., LLC v. Jim Beam

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

AUG 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-35664
Brands Co., 828 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Shakir failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants violated his
constitutional rights. See Chism v. Washington, 661 F.3d 380, 386 (9th Cir. 2011)
(elements of judicial deception claim); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d
1178, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 2006) (requirements for municipal liability under § 1983);
Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) (elements of
malicious prosecution claim).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.