NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAX E. ROBERSON, No. 22-16721

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00541-JAD-EJY

v.

MEMORANDUM*

HENDERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant-Appellee.

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). 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 22-16721