Opinion
No. 15-15291
03-13-2015
PAUL E. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. ROBICHAUD, LVMPD, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00679-APG-VCF
U.S. District Court for Nevada, Las Vegas
RESPONSE TO REFERRAL NOTICE
Plaintiff Paul E. Davis appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from my January 20, 2015 Order dismissing his lawsuit. The Ninth Circuit referred to me the question whether in forma pauperis status should continue for the appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith.
As set forth in my Order, Davis's claims against defendant Amber Craig are barred by the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity. See Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 262 (2006); Botello v. Gammick, 413 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir. 2005). Therefore, I see no basis for his appeal on that claim.
Davis's claims against the other defendants are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), because a judgment in Davis's favor "would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. . . ." Davis's convictions have not been set aside, and therefore he cannot prevail on his claims. Therefore, I see no basis for his appeal on those claims.
For the foregoing reasons, I believe the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith, and in forma pauperis status should not continue for the appeal.
Dated this 13th day of March, 2015.
/s/_________
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE