Max E. Roberson v. Henderson Police Department

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAX E. ROBERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HENDERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-16721
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00541-JAD-EJY
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Max E. Roberson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Henderson Police Department
arising from Roberson’s arrest and detention and the search of his residence. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under
* 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
FEB 27 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16721
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157
(9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Roberson’s action because Roberson
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered a constitutional violation as
a result of an official policy or custom. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)); Lockett v. County of Los Angeles, 977 F.3d
737, 741 (9th Cir. 2020) (discussing requirements to establish municipal liability
under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --