Simons v. Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners et al

Filing 9

ORDER dismissing Complaint without leave to amend; denying as moot 2 Motion to Stay; and directing clerk to enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 4/30/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

______________________________________
)
)
RICHARD SIMONS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NEVADA BOARD OF PAROLE
)
COMMISSIONERS et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

3:14-cv-00652-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

12
13

This is a prisoner civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court now

14

screens the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismisses it, without leave to amend.

15

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

16

Plaintiff Richard Simons is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of

17

Corrections. He sued three members of the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners (the

18

“Board”) and the Board itself in state court for violations of his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth

19

Amendment rights based on Defendants’ revocation of his parole. Defendants removed.

20

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

21

District courts must screen cases in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental

22

entity or its officers or employees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). A court must identify any cognizable

23

claims and must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, insufficiently pled, or directed

24

against immune defendants. See id. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). Pleading standards are governed by Rule

1 of 2

1

12(b)(6). Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012). When a court dismisses a

2

complaint upon screening, the plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with

3

directions as to curing its deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the

4

deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th

5

Cir. 1995).

6

III.

7

ANALYSIS
First, parole board members “are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for

8

decisions to grant, deny, or revoke parole because these tasks are functionally comparable to

9

tasks performed by judges.” Swift v. California, 384 F.3d 1184, 1189 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal

10

quotation marks omitted). Second, § 1983 claims based on parole determinations are

11

categorically barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) unless and until the

12

determination is overturned via writ of habeas corpus. Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024–

13

25 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Elliott v. United States, 572 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1978)).
CONCLUSION

14
15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED, without leave to amend.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Stay (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment and close the case.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated this 30th day of April, 2015.

20
21

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

22
23
24

2 of 2