Berry v. State of Nevada et al
Filing
16
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. #15 ) is accepted and adopted in full. Plaintiff's IFP application (ECF No. #12 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is required to pay, through NDOC, an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $14.76, within thirty days of this order (10/19/2022); thereafter NDOC shall pay clerk from inmate account. Clerk shall copy this order to NDOC Chief of Inmate Services. (Mailed to NDOC 9/19/2022.) Clerk is directed to FILE the complaint (ECF No. #1 - 1). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Lucia, the State of Nevada, and the Division of Parole and Probation. The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE insofar as Plaintiff seeks to sue Valencia and Washoe County under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Valencia and Washoe County are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE only insofar as Plaintiff may seek relief for ineffective assistance of counsel via a direct appeal of his conviction, State habeas proceeding, or federal habeas proceeding after Plaintiff has sought and is denied habeas relief in State court. This action is administratively closed. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 9/19/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
Case 3:22-cv-00079-ART-CSD Document 16 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
***
6
MICHAEL BERRY,
7
8
9
Case No. 3:22-CV-00079-ART-CSD
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
Defendants.
10
11
ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Michael Berry brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
12
Before
13
“Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No.
14
15), recommending Plaintiff’s IFP application (ECF No. 12) be granted, his
15
complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be filed, that this action be dismissed with prejudice as
16
to defendants Lucia, the State of Nevada, the Division of Parole and Probation,
17
and Washoe County and Valencia insofar as Plaintiff seeks to sue Washoe
18
County and Valencia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Insofar as Plaintiff seeks relief for
19
ineffective assistance of counsel via a direct appeal of his conviction, State
20
habeas proceeding, or federal habeas proceeding after he has exhausted State
21
court remedies, Magistrate Judge Denney recommended dismissing Valencia
22
and Washoe County without prejudice. Plaintiff had until August 17, 2022 to file
23
an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason,
24
and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, grants Plaintiff’s IFP
25
application, and dismisses defendants Lucia, the State of Nevada, and the
26
Division of Parole and Probation with prejudice. The Court additionally dismisses
27
Plaintiff’s action against Washoe County and Valencia with prejudice insofar as
28
the
Court
is
the
Report
and
Recommendation
(“R&R”
or
Case 3:22-cv-00079-ART-CSD Document 16 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 5
1
Plaintiff seeks to sue these defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and without
2
prejudice insofar as Plaintiff seeks relief for ineffective assistance of counsel.
3
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
4
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where
5
a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not
6
required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of
7
an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v.
8
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the
9
magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one
10
or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis
11
in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that
12
the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
13
record in order to accept the recommendation.”).
14
Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review,
15
and is satisfied Magistrate Judge Denney did not clearly err. I incorporate
16
Magistrate Judge Denney’s analysis by reference here. (ECF No. 15). Here,
17
Plaintiff sues the State of Nevada, state prosecutor Travis Lucia, his trial counsel
18
Lorena Valencia, Washoe County, and the Division of Parole and Probation. (ECF
19
1-1 at 2). Plaintiff first alleges Deputy District Attorney Travis Lucia violated his
20
rights by recommending a consecutive sentence—a recommendation which
21
contravened the plea agreement which provided for a concurrent sentence.
22
Although the Nevada Supreme Court eventually altered Plaintiff’s sentence to
23
run concurrently, Plaintiff by that time had served an extra eight months in
24
prison. Second, Plaintiff alleges his counsel—Lorena Valencia—failed to object to
25
the breach of Plaintiff’s plea agreement and violated his right to effective
26
assistance of counsel. Plaintiff claims that Washoe County is responsible for
27
providing him with ineffective counsel. Third, Plaintiff alleges that when he was
28
improperly sentenced consecutively, his parole date was moved but Plaintiff was
2
Case 3:22-cv-00079-ART-CSD Document 16 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 5
1
never seen by the parole board and no parole decision was ever made. Plaintiff
2
alleges that the Division of Parole and Probation violated Plaintiff’s due process
3
rights by not making a decision on his parole, causing Plaintiff to serve more
4
time in prison.
5
The State of Nevada is both not a person for purposes of section 1983 and
6
is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. See U.S. Const. amend.
7
XI; Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 69 (1997) (Ҥ 1983
8
actions do not lie against a State.”). Therefore, this Court agrees with Magistrate
9
Judge Denney’s recommendation that the State of Nevada be dismissed with
10
prejudice.
11
State prosecutor Travis Lucia is immune from suit under section 1983 for
12
recommending a sentence, a function “intimately associated with the judicial
13
phase of the criminal process.” Garmon v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 828, F.3d 842
14
(9th Cir. 2016) (citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); Kalina v.
15
Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 131 (1997)). Therefore, this Court agrees with Magistrate
16
Judge Denney’s recommendation that Lucia be dismissed with prejudice.
17
Acting in the role of advocate, former defense counsel Lorena Valencia is
18
not a State actor under section 1983 as a public defender or private attorney.
19
See Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 53 (1992) (“a public defender does not
20
qualify as a state actor when engaged in his general representation of a criminal
21
defendant.”); Szijarto v. Legeeman, 446 F.2d 864, 864 (9th Cir. 1972) (per
22
curiam) (“an attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color
23
of state law.’”). Therefore, this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Denney’s
24
recommendation that Valenica be dismissed with prejudice insofar as Plaintiff
25
sues Valencia under section 1983.
26
Plaintiff may, however, assert a Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of
27
counsel argument against Valencia in a direct appeal, post-conviction or habeas
28
proceeding, but not in an action pursuant to section 1983. See Nelson v.
3
Case 3:22-cv-00079-ART-CSD Document 16 Filed 09/19/22 Page 4 of 5
1
Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (Ҥ1983 must yield to the more specific federal
2
habeas statute, with its attendant procedural and exhaustion requirements,
3
where an inmate seeks injunctive relief challenging the fact of his conviction or
4
the duration of his sentence.”). Therefore, this Court agrees with Magistrate
5
Judge Denny’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s ineffective assistance of counsel
6
claims against Valencia be dismissed without prejudice.
7
As Washoe County is a municipality, and municipalities may not be sued
8
under a respondeat superior theory, this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge
9
Denney’s recommendation that Washoe County be dismissed with prejudice,
10
except insofar as Plaintiff’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim may be raised
11
through the mechanisms described above, in which case dismissal is without
12
prejudice. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691
13
(1978) (“a municipality cannot be held liable under §1983 on a respondeat
14
superior theory.”).
15
Finally, Nevada’s Division of Parole and Probation is an agency that is an
16
arm of the state and is therefore immune from suit under section 1983. See
17
Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990) (“the State and arms of the State,
18
which have traditionally enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, are not subject
19
to suit under § 1983 in either federal court or state court.”). Because “parole
20
board officials are entitled absolute immunity for parole board decisions,” leave
21
to amend to identify individual officials would be futile. Swift v. California, 384
22
F.3d 1184, 1189 (9th Cir. 2004). Therefore, this Court agrees with Magistrate
23
Judge Denney that Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice as
24
to the Division of Parole and Probation.
25
26
27
28
In sum, this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Denney. Having reviewed
the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Denney’s Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 15) is accepted and adopted in full.
4
Case 3:22-cv-00079-ART-CSD Document 16 Filed 09/19/22 Page 5 of 5
1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s IFP application (ECF No. 12) is
2
GRANTED. Plaintiff is required to pay, through NDOC, an initial partial filing fee
3
in the amount of $14.76, within thirty days of this order. Thereafter, whenever
4
his prison account exceeds $10, he is required to make monthly payments in the
5
amount of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his account
6
until the full $350 filing fee is paid. This is required even if the action is dismissed
7
or is otherwise unsuccessful.
8
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk send a copy of this order to the
9
attention of Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Corrections,
10
P.O. Box 7011, Carson City, Nevada 89702.
IT IS FUTHER ORDERED that the Clerk FILE the complaint (ECF No. 1-
11
12
1).
13
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the action be DISMISSED WITH
14
PREJUDICE as to Lucia, the State of Nevada, and the Division of Parole and
15
Probation. The action should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE insofar as
16
Plaintiff seeks to sue Valencia and Washoe County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
17
Valencia and Washoe County are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE only
18
insofar as Plaintiff may seek relief for ineffective assistance of counsel via a direct
19
appeal of his conviction, State habeas proceeding, or federal habeas proceeding
20
after Plaintiff has sought and is denied habeas relief in State court.
21
IT IS FUTHER ORDERED that this action be administratively closed.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
DATED THIS 19th Day of September 2022.
26
27
28
ANNE R. TRAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?