Latray v. State of Montana
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 in full. Any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Susan P. Watters on 9/26/2017. Mailed to Latray (TAG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
SEP 2 5 2017
Cte '!<. f.!.S. District Court
0 1stnct Of Montana
RONALD 0. LATRAY,
STATE OF MONTANA,
Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Timothy Cavan's
Findings and Recommendations filed on August 9, 2017. (Doc. 4). Judge Cavan
recommends that this Court dismiss the matter. Latray filed timely objections to
the findings and recommendations, entitling him to de novo review. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Latray's objections are as follows: (1) Judge Cavan erroneously referred to
the complaint as an amended complaint; (2) Judge Cavan erroneously stated Latray
sought damages; (3) Judge Cavan erroneously stated Latray previously challenged
the issue contained in the complaint; (4) Judge Cavan erroneously concluded the
complaint is barred; (5) Judge erroneously concluded a judgment in Latray's favor
would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction; (6) Judge Cavan
erroneously stated the prior case's number; (7) and Judge Cavan erroneously stated
he presided over the prior case.
The Court overrules Latray's objections as either meritless or irrelevant to
(1) Judge Cavan's reference to the complaint as an amended complaint was
inadvertent and irrelevant to the outcome.
(2) Judge Cavan did not erroneously state Latray sought damages. Judge
Cavan stated Latray' s claim was barred, to the extent it sought money
damages, by the Eleventh Amendment.
(3) Judge Cavan did not erroneously state Latray previously challenged the
issue in the complaint. Latray' s current complaint alleges state officers
unconstitutionally stopped his vehicle on March 24, 2015. Latray's previous
complaint alleged state officers unconstitutionally stopped his vehicle on
March 24, 2015. Latray v. Schuler, et al., Civil Action 15-cv-136-BLGSPW-TJC (Doc. 7 at 4).
(4) Judge Cavan did not erroneously conclude Latray's complaint is barred.
Regardless of whether Latray seeks declaratory relief or money damages, his
claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See Edwards v.
Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (applying Heck to bar claims for
declaratory relief and money damages).
(5) Judge Cavan did not erroneously conclude a judgment in Latray' s favor
would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction. Latray' s complaint
challenges the legality of the stop of his vehicle on March 24, 2015. If the
stop were illegal, it would necessarily implicate Latray' s conviction because
the conviction is predicated on the stop.
(6) Judge Cavan's erroneous statement of the prior case number was
inadvertent and irrelevant to the outcome.
(7) Judge Cavan did not state he presided over Latray' s prior case. Judge
Cavan's reference to "this Court" was a reference to the district court
generally, not to him personally. Latray's prior case was reassigned to
Judge Cavan upon Judge Ostby' s retirement. Latray v. Schuler, et al., Civil
Action 15-cv-136-BLG-SPW-TJC (Doc. 16).
The Court agrees with Judge Cavan in full. Therefore, for the reasons stated
in Judge Cavan's findings and recommendations,
IT IS ORDERED that the proposed Findings and Recommendations entered
by United States Magistrate Judge Cavan (Doc. 4) are ADOPTED IN FULL.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close this
matter and enter judgment in favor of the Defendants pursuant to Rule 58 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to reflect in
the docket that the Court certifies pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3)(A) of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in
Z.+A--of September, 2017.
United States District Judge
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?