Maier v. Mahoney et al
Filing
7
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 in full. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim. This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g), and the Court certifies that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 7/27/2011. Mailed to Maier. (TAG, )
FILED
JUl27 2011
PATRICK E. DUFFY, CLERK
By
IN THE UNITED STATES DIS1RICT COURT
eiii77
NDEe;PIJT'(;-;:rv;o;c[ERK.Mlm;s:r;iOU""'-LA""'-
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
LLOYD SCOTT MAIER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
CRAIG THOMAS, MIKE
MAHONEY, BRENT LIGHT, MARK
MOZER, and CASCADE COUNTY,
Defendants.
CV I) -S2-M-DWM
ORDER
---------------------------)
Plaintiff, Lloyd Scott Maier, filed a complaint alleging Defendants violated
his rights under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. Maier is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. United States
Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered Findings and Recommendation in
this matter on May 17,2011, recommending the Court dismiss Maier's complaint
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Maier timely
objected.
A party filing such objections is entitled to do novo review of the "specified
-1
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)( I). A party objecting to the findings or recommendations of a magistrate
judge must identify the parts ofthe magistrate's disposition that the party finds
objectionable and present argument and supporting authority, such that the district
court is able to identifY the issues and the reasons supporting a contrary result. It
is not sufficient for the objecting party to merely repeat arguments already made
before the magistrate or discuss issues collateral to the magistrate's findings. See
Hagberg v. Astrue, 2009 WI, 3386595 at *1 (D. Mont. 2009) ("There is no benefit
if the district court[] is required to review the entire matter de novo because the
objecting party merely repeats the arguments rejected by the magistrate."). The
portions of the Findings and Recommendation not specifically objected to will be
reviewed tor clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach ..
Inc., 656 F.2d l309, l313 (9th Cir. 1981).
Maier's complaint asserts he was denied clemency hearings based on false
information contained in his criminal history and prison records. His claims were
construed as a clemency due process claim and a custody reduction due process
claim.
Judge Lynch concluded that Maier's § 1983 action relating to his criminal
history was barred by the Heck doctrine because Maier has not alleged his
-2
sentence was revoked, declared invalid, expunged, or called into question. See
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 u.s. 477,486-487 (1994). In his objections, Maier
presents no evidence or law that casts doubt on Judge Lynch's conclusion that
Maier's claims regarding false criminal history are barred. I also agree that
Maier's claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Maier knew or should have
known of the alleged inaccuracies in 1996, and there is no excuse for the delayed
filing.
Judge Lynch was also correct in his conclusion that Defendant Mark Mozer
is afforded quasi-judicial immunity. Mr. Mozer performed functions integral to
the judicial process, and the law affords him immunity here. See Burkes v.
Callion, 433 F.2d 318, 319 (9th Cir. 1970).
Maier's objection that he has a liberty interest that supports a due process
claim also fails. Maier's objections allege no new facts that make any hardship he
suffers "atypical and significant." Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.
2003). He complains that his hardship was suffering "an extremely angry frame of
mind." Maier alleges his mental state eventually landed him in administrative
segregation. Maier has not alleged facts that compare to the conditions in
Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005). Therefore, he is unable to establish a
liberty interest.
-3
I find no clear error in Judge Lynch's remaining findings and
recommendations. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Lynch's Findings and
Recommendation (dkt # 4») are adopted in full. The Complaint is DISMISSED
WIlli PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter and to enter judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
The Clerk of Court is further directed to have the docket reflect that the
dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because Maier failed
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Clerk of Court is further directed to 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 ofthis decision would not be taken in good faith.
Defendants are entitled to judgment and no reasonable person could suppose an
appeal would have merit.
trDated this llay of July, 20 II.
f
-4-
l
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?