Edmiston v. Perlick

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 3, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00441
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JUSTIN J. EDMISTEN, Case No. 3:22-cv-00441-ART-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 JESSICA PERLICK, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Justin Edmisten (“Edmisten”) brings this action under 42 12 U.S.C. § 1983 suing multiple defendants including Attorney General Jessica 13 Perlick (“Perlick”), Federal District Court Judge Richard Boulware (“Boulware”), 14 Deputy District Attorney Sharron Clowners (“Clowners”), and Federal Public 15 Defender Martin Narrvillo (“Narrvillo”). (See ECF No. 1-1.) Edmisten’s complaint 16 asserts claims which seem to relate to his underlying criminal case and 17 conviction. (Id. at 2-6.) Edmisten requests unspecified declaratory judgment. (Id. 18 at 7.). Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or 19 “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin (ECF No. 20 3), recommending that this action be dismissed and Plaintiff’s application to 21 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 1) be denied as moot. For the reasons 22 explained below the Court adopts the R&R. 23 42 U.S.C. § 1983 aims “to deter state actors from using the badge of their 24 authority to deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights.” Anderson 25 v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting McDade v. West, 223 26 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000)). The statute “provides a federal cause of action 27 against any person who, acting under color of state law, deprives another of his 28 federal rights[,]” Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286, 290 (1999), and is “merely . . . 1 the procedural device for enforcing substantive provisions of the Constitution 2 and federal statutes.” Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 Claims under § 1983 require the plaintiff to allege (1) the violation of a federally 4 protected right by (2) a person or official who acts under the color of state law. 5 Anderson, 451 F.3d at 1067. 6 However, § 1983 is not a backdoor through which a federal court may 7 overturn a state court conviction or award relief related to the fact or duration of 8 a sentence. Section 1983 and “the federal habeas corpus statute . . . both provide 9 access to the federal courts ‘for claims of unconstitutional treatment at the 10 hands of state officials, . . . [but] they different in their scope and operation.’” 11 Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 854 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 12 512 U.S. 477, 48 (1994)). Federal courts must take care to prevent prisoners 13 from relying on § 1983 to subvert the differing procedural requirements of habeas 14 corpus proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87; Simpson 15 v. Thomas, 528 F.3d 685, 695 (9th Cir. 2008). When a prisoner challenges the 16 legality or duration of his custody, raises a constitutional challenge which could 17 entitle him to an earlier release, or seeks damages for purported deficiencies in 18 his state court criminal case, which effected a conviction or lengthier sentence, 19 his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 20 641, 648 (1997); Heck, 512 U.S. at 481; Wolf v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 554 21 (1974); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Simpson, 528 F.3d at 692-93. 22 Stated differently, where “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily 23 imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,” then “the complaint must be 24 dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence 25 has already been invalidated.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. 26 Judge Baldwin recommended dismissal because it appears that Edmisten 27 is challenging the constitutionality of his state court criminal conviction. 28 Consequently, he must demonstrate that his conviction has been overturned to 1 proceed in an action under § 1983. As he has not done so, his sole relief is a 2 habeas corpus action. The Court, therefore, recommends that the complaint be 3 dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. 4 Additionally, Judge Baldwin notes that Defendants Attorney General 5 Perlick, Judge Boulware, and Deputy District Attorney Clowners are likely 6 absolutely immune from suit under § 1983. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 7 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Judges are absolutely immune from damage actions 8 for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts . . . . A judge loses 9 absolute immunity only when [the judge] acts in the clear absence of all 10 jurisdiction or performs an act that is not judicial in nature.”); See Imbler v. 11 Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427, 430 (1976) (state prosecutors are absolutely 12 immune from § 1983 actions when performing functions “intimately associated 13 with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”). Based on the aforementioned 14 reasons, Judge Baldwin recommended dismissal of the case and denial of the 15 IFP application. 16 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 17 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where 18 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 19 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 20 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. 21 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 22 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 23 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”)(emphasis 24 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 25 the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 26 record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 27 Edmisten filed an objection (ECF No. 4) arguing that his habeas case has 28 been ongoing for almost ten years and the delay is an abuse of the court process. 1 || Ud.) While the Court sympathizes with Edmisten, he cannot expedite his habeas 2 || case through a separate Section 1983 case. His objections confirm that the R&R 3 || is correct. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will 4 || adopt the R&R in full. 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judge Baldwin’s Report and 6 || Recommendation (ECF No. 3) is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED IN FULL; 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF 8 || No. 1-1); 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is 10 || DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma 12 || pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED AS MOOT; 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court ENTER JUDGMENT 14 || accordingly and CLOSE this case. 15 16 DATED THIS 3rd Day of March 2023. 17 18 An floss dem 19 ANNE R. TRAUM 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28