Davis v. Dutoit et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Initial Review Order (docket no. 7 ) be ADOPTED IN FULL AS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT and incorporated fully herein by reference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that this action be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). The action against defendants Dutoit and Brood is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Court will enter a separate Judgment as required by Rule 58(a). Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)(Mailed out on 3/7/2017 by cjs).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
STEVEN HOWARD DAVIS
Case No. 1:13-CV-474-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
SERGEANT DUTOIT, STEPHAN BROOD,
OLIVIA CRAVEN, JOHN DOES 1-3, JANE
The Court has before it for review a recommendation by Magistrate Judge Dale.
For the reasons expressed below, the Court will adopt that recommendation in full as the
Order of this Court.
The Complaint of plaintiff Davis was conditionally filed due to his status as an
inmate and his request for in forma pauperis status. The Court is required to review the
complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). The Court must dismiss a complaint or any portion thereof
that states a claim that is frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief. § 1915(e)(2).
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 1
The Court referred this review to Magistrate Judge Dale, who issued a decision
recommending that the case should be dismissed and transferring the case back to this
Court. The Court agrees entirely with her well-written and thorough analysis and will
adopt it as the decision of this Court.
Pursuant to Swift v. State of California, 384 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2004), defendants
Craven, and the John and Jane Does, are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity and
must be dismissed. These defendants made discretionary decisions in the parole
revocation and re-parole process after weighing the evidence, and hence were engaged in
the tasks identified by Swift as entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity.
The action against defendants Brood and Dutoit must be dismissed under Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) because Davis’s claims are essentially seeking
immediate or a speedier release from prison. Finally, the claim that the defendants
required Davis to forfeit 300 days of parole time must also be dismissed because this
claim directly challenges the duration of his sentence and thus must be brought in habeas
This resolves all of Davis’s claims. The Court will therefore order that this action
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Initial Review Order
(docket no. 7) be ADOPTED IN FULL AS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT and
incorporated fully herein by reference.
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that this action be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). The action against defendants Dutoit and Brood is
dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Court will enter a separate Judgment as
required by Rule 58(a).
DATED: March 6, 2017
B. Lynn Winmill
United States District Court
Memorandum Decision & Order – page 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?