Jones v. Nielsen et al, No. 6:2010cv00018 - Document 8 (D. Mont. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 in full. Defendant Nielsen and Jones' claim regarding video evidence are DISMISSED.. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 6/9/2010. Mailed to Jones. (TAG, )

Download PDF
Jones v. Nielsen et al Doc. 8 IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION WILLIAM LEROY JONES, JR., Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF HELENA DISTRICT ATTORNEYDAVIDL. NIELSEN and CITY OF HELENA POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CV 10-18-H-DWM ORDER -------------------) Plaintiff Jones is proceeding pro se. He filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. United States Magistrate Judge Keith Strong entered Findings & Recommendations in this matter on May 3, 2010. Plaintiff did not timely object -1- Dockets.Justia.com and so has waived the right to de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court reviews the Findings and Recommendation for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists ifthe Court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422,427 (9th Cir. 2000). Jones' complaint alleged Defendant Nielsen denied him video evidence in a criminal trial. He also alleged that City of Helena police officers injured him when they arrested and jailed him. Judge Strong found that Nielsen is entitled to immunity from liability under § 1983 and recommended dismissing him from this matter. See Imbler v. Pachtrn;m, 424 U.S. 409,430 (1976). Judge Strong also found the claim regarding the video evidence is an attack on the validity of Jones' criminal conviction and is thus barred by the Heck doctrine. l Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,486-87 (1994). Upon review, I can fmd no clear error with Judge Strong's recommendations. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendations (dkt #5) are adopted in full. Defendant Nielsen and Jones' I To the extent any exception to Heck may apply, this claim would still by barred by the Younger abstention doctrine because the state criminal proceedings are on-going and the appellate review process is not complete. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). -2- claim regarding video evidence are DISMISSED. Dated this {ff:day of June, 2010. / / Donald W. Mo oy, District Judge United States. D trict Court / l -3-

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.