Max Roberson v. Henderson Police Department

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAX E. ROBERSON, No. 22-16721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