Ridge v. Montana Department of Corrections et al
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 in full. Petition 1 is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 8/5/2016. Mailed to Ridge. (TAG, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
CASEY CLINTON RIDGE,
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MONTANA, et al,
United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered his Findings and
Recommendations on May 3, 2016, recommending denial and dismissal of
Petitioner Casey Clinton Ridge's ("Ridge") application for writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Ridge timely filed objections and is therefore 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. 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).
In his objections, Ridge contends that: (1) Judge Lynch's factual findings
are incorrect; and (2) the Findings and Recommendations erred because the
prosecutor's actions support a presumption of vindictiveness that was not rebutted.
The Court disagrees as to both objections.
First, Ridge argues that Judge Lynch's factual findings in the Findings and
Recommendations are incorrect or inaccurate in several respects. For example,
Ridge states that contrary to the factual background as stated in Montana v. Ridge,
337 P.3d 80, 81 (Mont. 2014), he did in fact meet with the probation officer as
scheduled and the probation officer lied about him missing the appointment.
Ridge further states that this, as well as other alleged factual errors in the Findings
and Recommendations, can be supported through documentation. Ridge fails,
however, to provide this documentation to the Court.
As mentioned by Judge Lynch, "a determination of a factual issue made by a
State court shall be presumed to be correct." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1 ). As such,
Ridge retains the burden of rebutting this presumption by providing clear and
convincing evidence. Id. Ridge offers nothing, other than his unsupported
statements, to contradict this presumption. As such, the Court will overrule
Ridge's objection to the factual and procedural background as stated in the
Findings and Recommendations.
Next, Ridge objects to the Judge Lynch's finding that the "societal interest
in prosecution of Ridge's conduct justified the filing of the second set of bail
jumping charges." (Doc. 11 at 13 (citing United States v. Goodwin, 457
U.S. 368, 382 (1982)).) Ridge maintains that no societal interest supported further
prosecution. Instead, Ridge contends that the prosecutor was driven by personal
reasons to bring charges against him. The Court is not persuaded.
As discussed by Judge Lynch, the Montana Supreme Court found that the
societal interest supporting prosecution was Ridge's failure to comply with the
law, i.e., his failure to appear for scheduled court appearances in 2010 and 2011.
Ridge, 337 P.3d at 84. The Court agrees that this is a valid societal interest.
Further, Ridge's argument that the prosecutor brought charges against him for
personal reasons fails to rebut the presumption that the exercise of a public
official's duties is presumed proper. Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 696 (2004);
see also Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978) (providing that the
decision to bring charges by a prosecutor is a discretionary one). Ridge fails to
provide this Court with proof that his prosecution was vindictive. McCleskey v.
Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 297 (1987) ("Because discretion is essential to the criminal
justice process, we would demand exceptionally clear proof before we would infer
that the discretion has been abused."). As such, Ridge's arguments and
conclusory statements fail to convince this Court that he was unlawfully
prosecuted. Ridge's second objection will be overruled.
Accordingly, the Court reviews the remainder of Judge Lynch's Findings
and Recommendations for clear error and, finding none,
IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 3) are ADOPTED
(2) Ridge's Petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED for lack of merit.
(3) The Clerk of Court is directed to enter, by separate document, a
judgment of dismissal.
(4) A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
S-f£t day of August, 2016
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court
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?