FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID P. VANDAMENT, No. 08-35973
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-05522-RJB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MARK DUNCAN, Commander; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.
Lovelock 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
(2007) (“a § 1983 action that would call into question the lawfulness of a
plaintiff’s conviction or confinement is not cognizable” under Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (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.
2 08-35973