Williams v. Scottsdale Police Department

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 26 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TIMOTHY HUNTLEY WILLIAMS, No. 23-2311 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00694-SPL--ESW Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* SCOTTSDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT; SCOTTSDALE MUNICIPAL COURT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 20, 2024** Before: CANBY, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Timothy Huntley Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Scottsdale Police Department arising from his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review * 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). de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action because Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered a constitutional violation as a result of an official policy or custom. See 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)). To the extent that Williams intended to raise claims against individual officers, dismissal was proper because Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to state any 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)). We reject as unsupported by the record Williams’s contentions that the district court was biased against him. We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 23-2311