BROQUE ANDERSON V. R. OREWYLER, ET AL, No. 22-56125 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BROQUE ANTHONY ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-56125 D.C. No. 5:21-cv-02168-JAK-KES v. MEMORANDUM* R. OREWYLER, G6210, individual capacity and official capacity; MATA, Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff, individual and official capacity; R. WRIGHT, No. W2800, individual and official capacity; ESMERALDA CONTRERAS, Rancho Cucamonga, individual and official capacity, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 10, 2023** Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Broque Anthony Anderson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment * 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). dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unlawful search and seizure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)). We affirm. To the extent that Anderson challenges the merits of the district court’s dismissal, the district court properly dismissed Anderson’s action because Anderson’s official capacity claims failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants acted under an unconstitutional policy or custom; Anderson’s search and seizure claims resulting in a conviction were Heck-barred; and Anderson otherwise failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that, 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)); Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 (holding that if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”); Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (“In order to establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must show that a ‘policy or custom’ led to the plaintiff’s injury.” (citation 2 22-56125 omitted)). The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to stay Anderson’s action to allow him to challenge his state court conviction. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 649 (1997); Filtrol Corp. v. Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 245 (9th Cir. 1972) (setting forth standard of review). AFFIRMED. 3 22-56125
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.
