Jimenez v. Bowen et al
Filing
9
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 4 Findings and Recommendations, Terminate Motions. IT IS ORDERED:1.Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED with prejudice.2.Any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith asPlaintiffs claims are frivolous. 3.The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 4/7/2015. (SLL, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
FREDDY WAYNE JIMENEZ,
Plaintiff,
CV-15-13-GF-BMM
vs.
JASON MICHAEL BOWEN, RYAN
WELDON, BLACKFEET INDIAN
TRIBE, BUREAU OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS, DANA A. CHRISTENSEN,
MIKE COTTER, KRIS A. MCLEAN,
WILLIAM MERCER, MARSHA
GOOD SEPT-HURD, LORI SUEK,
LATONNA SPOTTED EAGLE, SAM
E. HADDON, WENDY RUNNING
CRANE, MISTY DAWN KELLY,
DARLENE ANNE BARRON,
GENNEA ADELLE DANKS, ALAN
ROBERT THORNE, TOM HERR,
COLLEEN GRAY, MONTANA
CHILD & FAMILY SERVICES,
MONTANA CHILD PROTECTIVE
SERVICES, BLACKFEET TRIBAL
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATIONS, and
BLACKFEET INDIAN HEALTH
SERVICES,
ORDER
Defendants.
Plaintiff Freddy Jimenez (Jimenez) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se.
Jimenez filed a Complaint on January 26, 2015. The Complaint asserts claims
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The claims challenge the validity of Jimenez’s federal
criminal convictions in 2001 and 2013. Jimenz alleges that the convictions were
invalid because: 1) Defendants entered into an “illegal memorandum of agreement”
to lower the federal evidentiary threshold for federal indictments of Native
Americans from plausible to viable; 2) Defendants obtained “false federal
indictments” against him; 3) Defendants submitted erroneous instructions to the
jury; and 4) Defendants “perpetrat[ed] a policy, practice, or pattern of shoddy and
prejudicial investigations” of a lesser quality than would otherwise be provided to
non-Indians. (Doc. 2 at 4, 6-11).
United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered Findings and
Recommendations in this matter on February 5, 2015. (Doc. 4). Judge Johnston
recommended that the Complaint be dismissed because it failed to state a claim
under § 1983. (Doc. 4 at 10-11). Jimenez did not file objections to Judge
Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations.
The Court has reviewed Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations
for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656
F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court finds no error in Judge Johnston’s
Findings and Recommendations, and adopts them in full. When a plaintiff who has
been convicted of a crime seeks relief under § 1983, the Court “must consider
whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity
-2-
of his conviction or sentence.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). If the
answer is yes, the § 1983 claims “must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can
demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id.
Neither of Jimenez’s federal convictions have been reversed, declared invalid,
expunged, or called into question. Dismissal of the § 1983 claims is appropriate.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED with prejudice.
2.
Any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith as
Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous.
3.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
DATED this 7th day of April, 2015.
-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?