Tarik I. Messaad v. COUNTY OF WASHOE; CHUCK ALLEN, Washoe County Sheriff

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TARIK I. MESSAAD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF WASHOE; CHUCK ALLEN,
Washoe County Sheriff,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16111
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00582-MMD-
VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Tarik I. Messaad appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an unlawful detention. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Thompson v. Paul, 547
F.3d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6));
* 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).
FILED
JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-16111
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson,
547 F.3d at 1058-59. We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Messaad’s Fourth Amendment claim
alleging that he was unconstitutionally held without a prompt probable cause
determination because a probable cause determination was made within 48 hours
of his arrest. See Jones v. City of Santa Monica, 382 F.3d 1052, 1055 & n.2 (9th
Cir. 2004) (probable cause determinations made within 48 hours are presumptively
prompt, and determinations may be informal and non-adversarial without a
personal appearance by the suspect).
Although the district court improperly dismissed on the basis of Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), dismissal of Messaad’s Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendment claims was proper because Messaad has not alleged any harm arising
from the defendants’ actions, and leave to amend would be futile. See Thinket Ink
Info. Res., Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 368 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th Cir. 2004)
(dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate where “amendment would be
futile” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Contrary to Messaad’s contention, the district court properly screened
Messaad’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-16111
complaints).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or 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.

-- 3 of 3 --