David Vandament v. Mark Duncan

Ninth Circuit

David Vandament v. Mark Duncan

402 F. App'x 224

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 29, 2010

Docket08-35973

StatusUnpublished

This text of 402 F. App'x 224 (David Vandament v. Mark Duncan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

David Vandament v. Mark Duncan, 402 F. App'x 224 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

David P. Vandament, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.2005), and may affirm on any ground supported by the record, O’Guinn v. Lo-velock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Vandament’s claims based on arrests, searches and seizure. See Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1013 (9th Cir.2000), overruled on other grounds by Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) (“a § 1983 action that would call into question the lawfulness of a plaintiffs conviction or confinement is not cognizable” under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994)). Because amendment would be futile, the district court properly dismissed these claims without leave to amend. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.1995). We are not persuaded that any remaining claims are cognizable or could be cured by amendment. See id.

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

David P. Vandament, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.2005), and may affirm on any ground supported by the record, O’Guinn v. Lo-velock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Vandament’s claims based on arrests, searches and seizure. See Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1013 (9th Cir.2000), overruled on other grounds by Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) (“a § 1983 action that would call into question the lawfulness of a plaintiffs conviction or confinement is not cognizable” under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994)). Because amendment would be futile, the district court properly dismissed these claims without leave to amend. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.1995). We are not persuaded that any remaining claims are cognizable or could be cured by amendment. See id.

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 F. App'x 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-vandament-v-mark-duncan-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack