Allan v. Hanson et al, No. 1:2022cv00117 - Document 67 (D. Utah 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S 64 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Farmington City Defendants' 37 Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The D avis County Defendants' 44 Motion to Dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's 57 Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. The court's determination on these issues reverses only the Magistrate Judge's determination of whether the claims should be dismissed with or without prejudice. The court affirms and adopts Magistrate Judge Romero's July 26, 2023 Report and Recommendation in all other respects. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 8/15/2023. (eat)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Allan v. Hanson et al Doc. 67 Case 1:22-cv-00117-DAK Document 67 Filed 08/15/23 PageID.583 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH DIANE KILLIAN ALLAN, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Case No. 1:22-CV-117-DAK-CMR v. DANE HANSON, et al., Judge Dale A. Kimball Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero Defendants. This case was assigned to United States District Court Judge Dale A. Kimball, who then referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On July 26, 2021, Magistrate Judge Romero issued a Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 64], recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 57] be denied, Defendants David Cole, Troy Rawlings, John Carl Ynchausti, Davis County Attorney’s Office, and the Davis County Justice Court’s (“Davis County Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 44] be granted in part and denied in part, and Defendants Dane Hanson, Eric Johnsen, Wayne Hansen, and Farmington City Corporation’s (“Farmington City Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 37] be granted in part and denied in part. The Report and Recommendation notified the parties that any objection to the Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receiving it. The Davis County Defendants filed an Objection to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation. The other parties did not file objections. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:22-cv-00117-DAK Document 67 Filed 08/15/23 PageID.584 Page 2 of 3 A Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is subject to de novo review by this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the record de novo along with the parties’ objections and related briefing. The Davis County Defendants object to the Report and Recommendation’s recommendation that the claims against Judge Ynchausti, Prosecutor Cole, Davis County Attorney Rawlings, Davis County Attorney’s Office, and Davis County Justice Court be dismissed without prejudice instead of with prejudice. As Magistrate Judge Romero found, based on the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Judge Ynchausti is entitled to absolute judicial immunity, and Prosecutor Cole and County Attorney Rawlings are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. The parties do not dispute the facts, Plaintiff has not sought an opportunity to amend her Complaint to allege anything that would take the claims against these Defendants out of the scope of absolute immunity. Therefore, the court agrees that dismissal of the claims against Judge Ynchausti, Prosecutor Cole, and County Attorney Rawlings should be, and are, dismissed with prejudice. In addition, as Magistrate Judge Romero found, Davis County Attorney’s Office and Davis County Justice Court are governmental subdivisions that do not qualify as separate suable entities, only the counties of the State of Utah are recognized as legal subdivisions of the State. Plaintiff could not subject these Defendants to suit by amending her petition. Therefore, the court agrees with Defendants that the claims against Davis County Attorney’s Office and Davis County Justice Court should be, and are, dismissed with prejudice. 2 Case 1:22-cv-00117-DAK Document 67 Filed 08/15/23 PageID.585 Page 3 of 3 The court’s determination on these issues reverses only the Magistrate Judge’s determination of whether the claims should be dismissed with or without prejudice. The court affirms and adopts Magistrate Judge Romero’s July 26, 2023 Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 64] in all other respects. DATED this 15th day of August, 2023. BY THE COURT: DALE A. KIMBALL United States District Judge 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.
