Case Name: Scott Anthony BACKUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jamie GISSEL, Mesa Police Officer # 16414, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-29
Citations: 491 F. App'x 838
Docket Number: No. 10-17660
Parties: Scott Anthony BACKUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jamie GISSEL, Mesa Police Officer # 16414, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 491
Pages: 838–839

Head Matter:
Scott Anthony BACKUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jamie GISSEL, Mesa Police Officer # 16414, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-17660.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
Filed Nov. 29, 2012.
Scott Anthony Backus, Camp Verde, AZ, pro se.
Jacqueline Jeffery, Esquire, City of Mesa, Mesa, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

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.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.