Reece v. Smith

6 Citing cases

  1. Uhuru v. Mancusi

    No. 2:20-cv-2088 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2020)

    In seeking injunctive relief, plaintiff fails to allege any facts that demonstrate his rights under federal law were violated. See Reece v. Smith, 2010 WL 5317440, *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010) (claim for injunctive relief failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because plaintiff failed "to point to any federal law indicating that defendant, by drafting a false psychological evaluation for use at a parole hearing, violated plaintiff's rights arising under federal law and the court is not aware of any such law."); see also Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 1985) (no constitutional right to rehabilitative therapy). Because plaintiff fails to state a cognizable civil rights claim supporting his request for injunctive or declaratory relief, such claims should also be dismissed.

  2. Gay v. Parsons

    Case No. 16-cv-05998-CRB (N.D. Cal. Jul. 26, 2019)   Cited 5 times
    Applying holding in Swift to parole officer who submitted investigative reports to parole board and requested an order for a parole revocation hearing to find immunity inapplicable

    report for a court, Burkes v. Callion, 433 F.2d 318, 319 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam), and several district court cases that, relying on Burkes, reasoned that because "there is no material distinction between a psychologist performing an evaluation of a defendant at the direction of a judge, and a psychologist performing the same function at the direction of a parole board" absolute immunity should extend to a psychologist who "conducted an assessment for the Board of Prison Hearings of plaintiff's future risk for danger in the community if released on parole," Von Staich v. Atwood, 2011 WL 3319998, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2011), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Staich v. Atwood, 2011 WL 3290414 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2011); accord Hall v. Tehrani, 2013 WL 1326879, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2013) ("[P]arole board officials are entitled to absolute, quasi-judicial immunity from damages liability in suits by prisoners for actions taken when processing parole applications."); Reece v. Smith, 2010 WL 5317440, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010) ("[D]efendant is immune from suit under the doctrine of 'quasi judicial immunity' for actions taken in her role as a psychologist appointed by the parole board."); see MJP at 6-7. Parsons and Goldstein argue that this line of precedent applies because the challenged conduct was the preparation of a report for Gay's parole suitability, and thus "Defendants Parsons and Goldstein have quasi-judicial immunity from damages liability in connection with the preparation of inmate Gay's psychological evaluation."

  3. Johnson v. Johnston

    No. 2:13-cv-1730 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2014)

    However, plaintiff fails to explain how the Board's use of Dr. Starrett's report violated plaintiff's rights arising under federal law. See Reece v. Smith, 2010 WL 5317440, *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010) (claim for injunctive relief failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because plaintiff failed "to point to any federal law indicating that defendant, by drafting a false psychological evaluation for use at a parole hearing, violated plaintiff's rights arising under federal law and the court is not aware of any such law.") Plaintiff's reliance on involuntary commitment cases is inapposite. (ECF No. 19 at 9.) Unlike the persons detained in or committed to mental hospitals, plaintiff is legally confined to prison by virtue of his criminal conviction.

  4. Johnson v. Johnston

    No. 2:13-cv-1730 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013)

    In addition, plaintiff fails to explain how the BPH's use of Dr. Starrett's report violated plaintiff's rights arising under federal law. See Reece v. Smith, 2010 WL 5317440, *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010) (claim for injunctive relief failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because plaintiff failed "to point to any federal law indicating that defendant, by drafting a false psychological evaluation for use at a parole hearing, violated plaintiff's rights arising under federal law and the court is not aware of any such law.") Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief based on Dr. Starrett's report, and defendants' failure to provide plaintiff mental health treatment for ASPD, should also be dismissed. Conclusion

  5. Hall v. Tehrani

    No. C 09-0057 RMW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2013)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that a psychological evaluation that allegedly contained erroneous facts was not an "adverse action" because the Board of Parole is required to consider many reliable and relevant information and the evaluation was not clearly adverse

    Since there is no material distinction between a psychologist performing an evaluation of a defendant at the direction of a judge, and a psychologist performing the same function at the direction of a parole board, the court finds that defendants also have quasi-judicial immunity from damages liability for the alleged acts giving rise to plaintiff's claim. See Von Staich v. Atwood, 2011 WL 3319998, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2011); Reece v. Smith, 2010 WL 5317440, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010); Howard v. Rea, 2005 WL 1565002, at *8 (D. Or. June 27, 2005). In addition, the SAC seeks a declaratory judgment against defendants for violating plaintiff's rights.

  6. Palomar v. Hartung

    No. CIV S-10-3477 JAM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012)

    Since there is no material distinction between a psychologist performing an evaluation of a defendant at the direction of a judge, and a psychologist performing the same function at the direction of a parole board, the court finds that Dr. Hartung also has quasi-judicial immunity from damages liability for the alleged acts giving rise to plaintiff's claims herein. See Von Staich v. Atwood, 2011 WL 3319998 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2011); Reece v. Smith, 2010 WL 5317440 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec.20, 2010); Howard v. Rea, 2005 WL 1565002 at *8 (D.Or. June 27, 2005). As to plaintiff's request that Dr. Hartung be investigated for malpractice and his medical license be revoked, these are not cognizable requests for relief under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983.