Chilinski v. Soc'y, CV 14-77-H-DLC

• Decision Date: 01 May 2015
• Docket Number: CV 14-77-H-DLC
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Montana
• Parties: MIKE KURT CHILINSKI, Plaintiff, v. THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ITS AGENTS ADAM PARASCANDOLA, WENDY HERGENRAEDER AND DOE AGENTS: THE LEWIS AND CLARK HUMANE SOCIETY, GINA WIEST, DIRECTOR AND DOE AGENTS AND VOLUNTEERS, THE JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT, CRAIG DOOLITTLE, CHAD MCFADDEN DEAN HILDEBRAND AND DOE "AGENTS" AND VOLUNTEERS, THE JEFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND DOE AGENTS INCLUDING MATHEW J. JOHNSON; HON. LOREN TUCKER. HON. DENNIS GUILO, THE HELENA INDEPENDENT RECORD AND DOE AGENTS, THE ANIMAL CENTER, EDWARD NEWMAN, AND 3 UNNAMED VETERINARIANS, Defendants.

MIKE KURT CHILINSKI, Plaintiff, v. THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ITS AGENTSADAM PARASCANDOLA, WENDY HERGENRAEDER AND DOEAGENTS: THE LEWIS AND CLARK HUMANE SOCIETY, GINA WIEST,DIRECTOR AND DOE AGENTS AND VOLUNTEERS, THE JEFFERSONCOUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT, CRAIG DOOLITTLE, CHAD MCFADDENDEAN HILDEBRAND AND DOE "AGENTS" AND VOLUNTEERS, THEJEFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND DOE AGENTSINCLUDING MATHEW J. JOHNSON; HON. LOREN TUCKER. HON.DENNIS GUILO, THE HELENA INDEPENDENT RECORD AND DOEAGENTS, THE ANIMAL CENTER, EDWARD NEWMAN, AND 3UNNAMED VETERINARIANS, Defendants.

CV 14-77-H-DLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION

May 1, 2015

ORDER

United States Magistrate Judge R. Keith Strong entered his Findings and Recommendation on December 29, 2014 recommending that Chilinski'sComplaint be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Chilinski objected to the Findings and Recommendation on January 12, 2015, and so the Court will conduct de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The portions of the findings and recommendations not specifically objected to will be reviewed for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mack, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). For the reasons listed below, the Court adopts Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendation in full.

Chilinski filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the search of his kennels and home, and the seizure of his dogs, by the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, Humane Society of the United States, local animal shelter volunteers, and two volunteer veterinarians, violated his constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches, due process, a fair trial, an impartial judge, and equal protection. Chilinski further alleged claims of invasion of privacy, collusion, abuse of process, negligence, defamation, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Judge Strong found that Chilinski's challenges to his conviction in state court are barred by the Heck doctrine, the claims he seeks in this Court that are the same as claims brought in the state action are barred by res judicata, the judges and county attorney named as defendants are immune fromsuit, police had no duty to protect Chilinski, and that this Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Chilinski's remaining state law claims.

Chilinksi filed lengthy objections to Judge Strong's findings and recommendation. First, Chilinski objects to Judge Strong's finding that his claims challenging the validity of his state conviction are Heck barred. This Court agrees with Judge Strong that Chilinski has previously challenged his conviction in state court, and the Montana Supreme Court upheld his conviction. State v. Chilinski, 330 P.3d 1169 (Mont. 2014). To the extent Chilinski attempts to challenge that conviction, his claims are barred by the Heck doctrine.

Chilinski continues to object to the participation of volunteers in the execution of the search warrant, the dissemination of confidential criminal justice information, and the seizure and forfeiture of his dogs. Chilinski pursued these exact same claims in state court, and the Montana Supreme Court addressed them on the merits. Chilinksi objects that the Montana Supreme Court's order disposing of his claims is not final because he is in the processing of appealing it to the United States Supreme Court. The Montana Supreme Court's opinion dated August 5, 2014 is final for purposes of Chilinski's appeal and for purposes of res judicata in this Court. The state court action also involved the same parties or their privies, and as such Chilinksi's claims regarding volunteer assistance duringexecution of the search warrant, dissemination of confidential criminal justice information, and the seizure and forfeiture of his dogs are barred by res judicata.

Chilinski next objects to Judge Strong's finding that Defendants Hon. Loren Tucker, Hon. Dennis Guilo, the Jefferson County Attorney's Office, and Mathew Johnson are immune from suit. Chilinski objects, stating that the judges acted beyond their jurisdiction when they allowed for volunteer participation the execution of the search warrant. Chilinksi appears to make similar objections that the prosecuting attorneys should not be...