Honeycutt v. Bisbee et al

Filing 3

ORDERED that the Clerk shall DETACH and FILE the Complaint (ECF No. 1 -1). The Complaint is DISMISSED, without leave to amend. The Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1 ) is DENIED as moot. Clerk shall enter judgment and close the case. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 2/17/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

______________________________________
)
)
TODD M. HONEYCUTT,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CONNIE BISBEE et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

3:16-cv-00256-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.

15

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

16

Plaintiff Todd Honeycutt is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of

17

Corrections. He alleges that the members of the Nevada Parole Board (“the Board”) have

18

violated his due process rights by considering the wrong report at his parole hearing and failing

19

to hold a new hearing with a corrected report in accordance with state regulations, and that they

20

violated his equal protection rights by treating him (a sex offender) differently from non-sex

21

offenders under an unofficial policy.

22

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS

23

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

24

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

1 of 4

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

Cir. 1995).

8

III.

9

ANALYSIS
Parole board members “are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for decisions to

10

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

11

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

12

omitted). Section 1983 claims based on parole determinations are categorically barred by Heck

13

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) unless and until the determination is overturned via writ of

14

habeas corpus. Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024–25 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Elliott v.

15

United States, 572 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1978)). If the only thing a plaintiff seeks, however, is

16

a hearing free from constitutional infirmity, and not a favorable decision, i.e., not any relief that

17

will necessarily affect the length of his confinement, he may (indeed must) bring the claim under

18

§ 1983 as opposed to habeas corpus. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005).

19

Even so limiting Plaintiff’s claims here, the Court must dismiss them. As for the due

20

process claim, there is no cognizable liberty interest in parole in Nevada, so no process is

21

constitutionally due. Moor v. Palmer, 603 F.3d 658, 662 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Severance v.

22

Armstrong, 620 P.2d 369, 370 (Nev. 1980)). As for the equal protection claim, there is no

23

fundamental right at stake, see id., and the distinction the state has allegedly drawn (sex

24

offenders versus non-sex offenders) does not implicate any suspect or quasi-suspect category of

2 of 4

1

persons, so rational basis review applies. Under rational basis review, a court does not judge the

2

perceived wisdom or fairness of a law, nor does it examine the actual rationale for the law when

3

adopted; it asks only whether “there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could

4

provide a rational basis for the classification.” Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319–20 (1993)

5

(quoting FCC v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993)). The Court agrees with other

6

courts that have found a rational basis for treating sex offenders differently from non-sex

7

offenders in the parole context due to concerns of community safety and recidivism. See, e.g.,

8

Gale v. Moore, 763 F.2d 341, 343–44 (8th Cir. 1985); Juarez v. Renico, 149 F. Supp. 2d 319,

9

325 (N.D. Mich. 2001). The Court of Appeals has noted that in some contexts there is a rational

10

basis for a state to distinguish not only between sex offenders and non-sex offenders, but even

11

between very fine gradations of sex offenders such as those guilty of oral copulation versus

12

sexual intercourse with minors. Jones v. Solis, 121 Fed. Appx. 228, 229–230 & n.2 (9th Cir. Feb.

13

2, 2005).
Because amendment of either claim would be futile, the Court will not give leave to

14
15

amend. There is no set of facts that will give Plaintiff a liberty interest in parole in Nevada, and

16

there is no set of facts that will negate the rational basis Defendants have to treat sex offenders

17

and non-sex offenders differently for the purposes of parole.

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

3 of 4

CONCLUSION

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall DETACH and FILE the Complaint (ECF

2
3

No. 1-1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED, without leave to

4
5
6
7

amend.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
(ECF No. 1) is DENIED as moot.

8

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

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

DATED: This 17th of January, 2017.2017.
Dated this 4th day day of February,

11
12

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

4 of 4