Chilinski v. Humane Society of The United States et al
Filing
10
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 in full. Complaint 2 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). Any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 5/1/2015. Mailed to Chilinski. (TAG, )
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
MIKE KURT CHILINSKI,
MAY 0 1 2015
Clerk, U.S District Court
District Of Montana
Missoula
CV 14-77-H-DLC
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND ITS AGENTS
ADAMPARASCANDOLA,WENDY
HERGENRAEDER AND DOE
AGENTS: THE LEWIS AND CLARK
HUMANE SOCIETY, GINA WIEST,
DIRECTOR AND DOE AGENTS AND
VOLUNTEERS, THE JEFFERSON
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT, CRAIG
DOOLITTLE, CHAD MCFADDEN
DEAN HILDEBRAND AND DOE
"AGENTS" AND VOLUNTEERS, THE
JEFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE AND DOE AGENTS
INCLUDING MATHEW J. JOHNSON;
HON. LOREN TUCKER. HON.
DENNIS GUILO, THE HELENA
INDEPENDENT RECORD AND DOE
AGENTS, THE ANIMAL CENTER,
EDWARD NEWMAN, AND 3
UNNAMED VETERINARIANS,
Defendants.
United States Magistrate Judge R. Keith Strong entered his Findings and
Recommendation on December 29, 2014 recommending that Chilinski's
-1-
Complaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Chilinski objected to the Findings and Recommendation on
January 12, 2015, and so the Court will conduct de nova review of the record. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). The portions of the findings and recommendations not
specifically objected to will be reviewed for clear error. McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). For
the reasons listed below, the Court adopts Judge Strong's Findings and
Recommendation in full.
Chilinski filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the search of his
kennels and home, and the seizure of his dogs, by the Jefferson County Sheriffs
Office, Humane Society of the United States, local animal shelter volunteers, and
two volunteer veterinarians, violated his constitutional rights to be free from
unreasonable searches, due process, a fair trial, an impartial judge, and equal
protection. Chilinski further alleged claims of invasion of privacy, collusion,
abuse of process, negligence, defamation, libel, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Judge Strong found that Chilinski' s challenges to his
conviction in state court are barred by the Heck doctrine, the claims he seeks in
this Court that are the same as claims brought in the state action are barred by res
judicata, the judges and county attorney named as defendants are immune from
-2-
suit, police had no duty to protect Chilinski, and that this Court should decline
supplemental jurisdiction over Chilinski's remaining state law claims.
Chilinksi filed lengthy objections to Judge Strong's findings and
recommendation. First, Chilinski objects to Judge Strong's finding that his claims
challenging the validity of his state conviction are Heck barred. This Court agrees
with Judge Strong that Chilinski has previously challenged his conviction in state
court, and the Montana Supreme Court upheld his conviction. State v. Chilinski,
330 P.3d 1169 (Mont. 2014). To the extent Chilinski attempts to challenge that
conviction, his claims are barred by the Heck doctrine.
Chilinski continues to object to the participation of volunteers in the
execution of the search warrant, the dissemination of confidential criminal justice
information, and the seizure and forfeiture of his dogs. Chilinski pursued these
exact same claims in state court, and the Montana Supreme Court addressed them
on the merits. Chilinksi objects that the Montana Supreme Court's order
disposing of his claims is not final because he is in the processing of appealing it
to the United States Supreme Court. The Montana Supreme Court's opinion dated
August 5, 2014 is final for purposes of Chilinski's appeal and for purposes of res
judicata in this Court. The state court action also involved the same parties or
their privies, and as such Chilinksi' s claims regarding volunteer assistance during
-3-
execution of the search warrant, dissemination of confidential criminal justice
information, and the seizure and forfeiture of his dogs are barred by res judicata.
Chilinski next objects to Judge Strong's finding that Defendants Hon. Loren
Tucker, Hon. Dennis Guilo, the Jefferson County Attorney's Office, and Mathew
Johnson are immune from suit. Chilinski objects, stating that the judges acted
beyond their jurisdiction when they allowed for volunteer participation the
execution of the search warrant. Chilinksi appears to make similar objections that
the prosecuting attorneys should not be absolutely immune for their conduct in
initiating this case. As stated above, the Montana Supreme Court has already
affirmed that the participation of volunteers did not violate Chilinski' s
constitutional rights. Chilinski, 330 P.3d 1169. Chilinski's objections neither
provide facts showing that the judges took nonjudicial actions, or actions beyond
their jurisdiction, nor that the prosecuting attorneys should not be immune for their
conduct.
Chilinski further objects to Judge Strong's finding that the police officers
did not have a duty to protect members of the public from crime. Chilinski' s
objections do not state facts showing that he had a "special relationship" creating a
duty to protect, nor do they allege that the officers acted with deliberate
indifference to place him in danger ofa crime. Woodv. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583
-4-
(9th Cir. 1989). This Court agrees with Judge Strong in finding that Chilinski has
failed to state a claim for failure to protect.
Lastly, Chilinski objects to Judge Strong's recommendation that this Court
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims.
Chilinski objects that it would be in error to do so. This Court may decline
supplemental jurisdiction if it has dismissed the claims over which it has original
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Pursuant to this Order, the Court is
dismissing all of Chilinski' s claims over which it has original jurisdiction and will
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.
Chilinski also requests leave to amend in order to allege additional facts to
attempt to cure the current defects. However, alleging more facts to challenge his
conviction will not overcome the fact that those claims are barred by Heck.
Similarly, additional facts cannot cure the defects in his claims regarding the
issuance and execution of the search warrant, dissemination of confidential
criminal justice information, and seizure and forfeiture of his dogs as these claims
are barred by res judicata. Lastly, Chilinski has filed lengthy facts in his
complaint and objections regarding his claims against the Jefferson County
Attorney's Office, Mathew Johnson, Hon. Loren Tucker, Hon. Dennis Guilo and
his claims regarding law enforcement's duty to protect him from crime. Chilinski
-5-
has failed to overcome immunity and failed to state a claim for protection. The
allegation of additional facts would not cure these defects.
Chilinski' s Complaint is frivolous as it lacks arguable substance in law or
fact. No reasonable person could suppose an appeal would have merit. Chilinski
has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and this dismissal
will therefore count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
There being no clear error in Judge Strong's remaining Findings and
Recommendation,
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendation
(Doc. 5) are ADOPTED IN FULL. Chilinksi's Complaint (Doc. 2) is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close this matter
and enter judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the docket shall reflect that the Court
certifies pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3)(A) that any appeal of this decision
would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the docket shall reflect that this dismissal
counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because Plaintiff has failed to
state a claim and his claims are frivolous.
-6-
DATED this
l 'i>t day of May, 20 .
Dana L. Christensen, Chief dge
United States District Court
-7-
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?