DALLIN FORT V. STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 21-35265 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

Plaintiff brought an action against the State of Washington, the Review Board, and its members (State Defendants). Plaintiff specifically sought review of the district court’s decision that the Review Board’s actions relating to Plaintiff’s release determination hearing fall squarely within the quasi-judicial nature of the Review Board’s functions, and that Defendants are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity.
 
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action alleging false imprisonment, negligence and civil rights violations arising from actions taken by the Washington Indeterminate Sentencing Review Board in scheduling Plaintiff’s hearing.
 
The Indeterminate Sentencing Review Board is a parole board created by the Washington State Legislature that is tasked with reviewing the sentences of convicted sex offenders to determine whether the offenders should be released on parole. The court held that under the facts of this case and in the context of the proceedings as a whole, the Review Board’s setting of hearings pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code Section 9.95.420 was “part and parcel of the decision process,” thereby warranting quasi-judicial immunity. The court rejected Plaintiff’s contention that the scheduling of the hearing was an administrative task not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. Because the court agreed with the district court that the Review Board was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, Plaintiff was unable to state a plausible claim for relief against the state Defendants.

Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action alleging false imprisonment, negligence and civil rights violations arising from actions taken by the Washington Indeterminate Sentencing Review Board in scheduling plaintiff’s hearing. The Indeterminate Sentencing Review Board is a parole board created by the Washington State Legislature that is tasked with reviewing the sentences of convicted sex offenders to determine whether the offenders should be released on parole. The panel held that under the facts of this case and in the context of the proceedings as a whole, the Review Board’s setting of hearings pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.420 was “part and parcel of the decision process,” thereby warranting quasi-judicial immunity. The panel rejected plaintiff’s contention that the scheduling of the hearing was an administrative task not entitled to quasi- * The Honorable Jennifer G. Zipps, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 4 FORT V. STATE OF WASHINGTON judicial immunity. Because the panel agreed with the district court that the Review Board was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, plaintiff was unable to state a plausible claim for relief against the state defendants.

Primary Holding

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action alleging false imprisonment, negligence and civil rights violations arising from actions taken by the Washington Indeterminate Sentencing Review Board in scheduling Plaintiff’s hearing.


Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.