SCOTT BACKUS V. JAMIE GISSEL, No. 10-17660 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 29 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SCOTT ANTHONY BACKUS, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 10-17660 D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02320-GMS v. MEMORANDUM * JAMIE GISSEL, Mesa Police Officer #16414, Defendant - Appellee. 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. * 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). 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, 48687 (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 10-17660

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.