Scott Backus v. Jamie Gissel
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
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 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (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.