Middlemiss v. State of Montana et al
Filing
7
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 in full. Complaint 2 DISMISSED. This 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 1/5/2016. Mailed to Middlemiss. (TAG, )
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION
JOHN MIDDLEMISS,
JAN 0 5 2016
C~s. District Court
.Ot Montana
MISSOula
CV 15-88-H-DLC-JTJ
Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
STATE OF MONTANA and
MONTANA SUPREME COURT,
Defendants.
United States Magistrate Judge John T. Johnston entered an order, findings,
and recommendations in this case on October 23, 2015, granting Plaintiff John
Middlemiss' s ("Middlemiss") motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but
recommending that his Complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. On November 9, 2015,
Middlemiss filed objections to the findings and recommendations, and so is
entitled to de novo review of those findings and recommendations to which he
specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 )(C). This Court reviews for clear error
those findings and recommendations to which no party objects. See McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir.
-1-
1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). "Clear error exists ifthe Court
is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."
United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). For the reasons
explained below, the Court adopts Judge Johnston's findings and
recommendations in full.
The foundation for this action against the State of Montana and the Montana
Supreme Court is a state habeas corpus petition filed by Middlemiss in February
2015, and denied by the Montana Supreme Court in March 2015. In his state
petition, Middlemiss alleged that both the judgment against him and his sentence
were illegal because the crimes to which he plead guilty were predicated on
overlapping conduct, and therefore constituted double jeopardy. The Montana
Supreme Court denied the petition on procedural grounds, holding that a "writ of
habeas corpus is not available to attack the sentence of a person who has been
adjudged guilty of an offense and has failed to appeal or has exhausted the remedy
of appeal." Middlemiss v. Berkebile, No. OP 15-0122, slip op. at 2 (Mont. Mar.
10, 2015) (citations omitted). In the instant federal action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, Middlemiss seeks a declaration that his constitutional rights were violated
by the Montana Supreme Court's disposition of his state petition, and a remand of
the petition to the court for reconsideration.
-2-
Judge Johnston found Middlemiss's action barred by the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, which precludes a federal district court's assumption of subject matter
jurisdiction over "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries
caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings
commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments."
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Judge
Johnston further found that both defendants are immune from suit: the State of
Montana pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, and the justices of the Montana
Supreme Court pursuant to judicial immunity principles.
Middlemiss objects to Judge Johnston's findings and recommendations on
multiple fronts, including that Judge Johnston: (1) omitted the "facts" that
Middlemiss was "completely abandoned by counsel ... for purposes of direct
appeal" and that criminal procedure in Montana fosters "extreme double jeopardy
violations" (Doc. 6 at 2); (2) failed to recognize that the Montana Supreme Court's
decision in Lott v. State, 150 P.3d 337 (Mont. 2006), provides that "habeas redress
can 'NEVER' be suspended or time barred" (Doc. 6 at 3); (3) erroneously applied
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and (4) erroneously declared the justices of the
Montana Supreme Court immune from suit. However, none ofMiddlemiss's
objections change the fact that at bottom, Middlemiss seeks from this Court
-3-
exactly what Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes - "exercising subject matter
jurisdiction over a suit that is a de facto appeal from a state court judgment."
Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, NA., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008). "A federal
action constitutes such a de facto appeal where claims raised in the federal court
action are inextricably intertwined with the state court's decision such that the
adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling or require the
district court to interpret the application of state laws or procedural rules." Id.
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Such is the case here.
Finding no clear error in the remainder of Judge Johnston's findings and
recommendations,
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Johnston's findings and recommendations
(Doc. 4) are ADOPTED IN FULL. Middlemiss's Complaint (Doc. 2) is
DISMISSED. 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 Clerk of Court shall have the docket
reflect 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 good
faith. The record makes plain that Middlemiss' s Complaint is frivolous, as it lacks
arguable substance in law or fact.
-4-
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall have the docket
reflect that this dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
DATED this
5~day of January, 2
16.
L.~
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court
-5-
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?