Bruck v. Ada County Sheriff's Office

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SCOTT C. BRUCK, No. 24-6767 D.C. No. 1:24-cv-00198-BLW Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

ADA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, A.C.T.I.O.N.; GREATER IDAHO FUGITIVE TASK FORCE; ADA COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; BOISE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; ADA COUNTY CRISIS NEGOTIATION TEAM; CLIFF LOGSDON, Ada (952); PATRICK AVELLA, Lt. (559); SANTUCCI, Sgt.; TERRY STENGER, (4882); TERRY LAKEY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 26, 2026**

*

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).

Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Scott C. Bruck appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. 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); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bruck’s action because Bruck failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-98 (1989) (setting forth objective reasonableness standard for excessive force determinations); Lockett v. County of Los Angeles, 977 F.3d 737, 741 (9th Cir. 2020) (setting forth requirements for municipal liability); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-342 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that, although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

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). We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-6767