Chung v. Follansbee

Filing 12

OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant's motion to dismiss 11 is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED. See formal OPINION AND ORDER. Copy of OPINION AND ORDER sent to Pro Se Plaintiff. Signed on 5/17/2016 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (rh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON

ANDY CHUNG,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 6: 15-cv-O 1425-AA
OPINION AND ORDER

v.
JULIET FOLLANSBEE, Director,
PSRB,
Defendant.

AIKEN, Judge:
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed suit alleging wrongful incarceration against the director
of the Oregon Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB). Plaintiff alleges that he was
wrongfully denied a full discharge or conditional release from the Oregon State Hospital.
Defendant now moves to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons discussed
below, defendant's motion is granted and this case is dismissed.
Defendant contends that plaintiffs claims should be dismissed because 1) this Comt lacks
subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, 2) defendant was not involved
personally in the challenged decision, and 3) defendant is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity.

1

- OPINION AND ORDER

Essentially, plaintiff challenges a decision by the PSRB to deny him conditional release
or a full discharge. However, this court is prohibited under Rooker-Feldman from reviewing
state court decisions or any issues that are inextricably inte1twined with a state court decision.
Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154-55 (9th Cir. 2003). The decision of the PSRB was an

administrative proceeding akin to a state cou1t decision, one this court cannot review directly.
Further, plaintiff alleges no personal involvement by defendant to state a claim for relief
against her. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). Even if he did so allege,
defendant would be entitled to immunity. Parole board officials "are entitled to absolute quasijudicial immunity for decisions to grant, deny, or revoke parole because these tasks are
functionally comparable to tasks performed by judges." Swift v. Cal., 384 F.3d 1184, 1189 (9th
Cir. 2004) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Here, plaintiff's allegations arise from
defendant's performance of judicial functions - i.e. the decision to deny his conditional release.
Thus, defendant is absolutely immune to the extent plaintiff's claims are premised on the PSRB's
executive decisions.
CONCLUSION

Defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. 11) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this / f a y of May, 2016.

~~

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

2

- OPINION AND ORDER