Heidi Ellaina Herman v. Town of Marana, a Municipal Corporation;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HEIDI ELLAINA HERMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TOWN OF MARANA, a Municipal
Corporation; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16449
D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00397-RM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Heidi Ellaina Herman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dougherty v. City of
* 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
JUN 1 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-16449
Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 897 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Herman’s claims against the Town of
Marana because Herman failed to allege facts sufficient to show that she suffered a
constitutional violation as a result of an official policy or custom. See Castro v.
County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073-76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc)
(discussing requirements to establish municipal liability under Monell v.
Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)); Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d
712, 714 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Proof of random acts or isolated events is insufficient to
establish custom.”).
The district court properly dismissed Herman’s claims against Lacaillade
and Miller because Herman failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that these
defendants personally participated in a violation of her constitutional rights. See
Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1241-43 (9th Cir. 2018) (requirements for
establishing supervisory liability; “[D]efendants cannot be held liable for a
constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they were integral
participants in the unlawful conduct.”).
The district court properly dismissed Herman’s claims against Alvarez
because Herman failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (a plaintiff fails to show she is entitled
to relief if the complaint’s factual allegations “do not permit the court to infer more

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-16449
than the mere possibility of [the alleged] misconduct”); Arizona v. Youngblood,
488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988) (“Unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the
part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute
a denial of due process of law.”); Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495 (1977)
(per curiam) (stating that an officer has a duty to administer Miranda warnings
“only where there has been such a restriction on a person’s freedom as to render
him ‘in custody’”); Fortson v. L.A. City Atty’s Office, 852 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th
Cir. 2017) (probable cause is a complete defense to a § 1983 claim alleging false
arrest).
We do not consider 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 --