Tarbutton v. USA

── Tarbutton v. USA ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THOMAS TARBUTTON, No. 24-4657 D.C. No. 8:24-cv-01084-FMO-AS Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JESSIE MURRAY, FBI Agent; JOHN DOE 1, Federal Agent; individual; JOHN DOE 2, Panama Law Enforcement, individual; JOHN DOE 3, Panama Law Enforcement, individual; SIVA SAAVEDRA, Panama Law Enforcement, individual; PETE PIERCE, Senior Deputy DA: individual and official capacity; DAVE MELNYK, Investigator with the OCDA, individual and official capacity; ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, individual, official capacity; LANCE JENSEN, Judge Superior Court, individual; JERRY SCHAFFER, Trial Defense Attorney, individual; VALERIE WASS, State appointed appellate attorney, individual and official capacity; ALVARO MEJIA, Panama Law Enforcement, individual; APPELLATE DEFENDERS, INC., state appellate project, official capacity, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2026** Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Thomas Tarbutton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying him in forma pauperis status and dismissing his action alleging various violations of the Constitution, federal laws, and state statutes by individuals involved in his arrest and state criminal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of in forma pauperis status. O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tarbutton in forma pauperis status because Tarbutton’s action is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 647-48 (1997) (explaining that claims that a judicial decisionmaker is biased are Heck-barred); Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining that claims based on lack of probable cause for an arrest and imprisonment are Heck-barred); ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 24-4657 Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 584-85 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining that ineffective assistance of counsel claims are Heck-barred). 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 24-4657