Redfox v. Doe et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
WYATT N. REDFOX,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:21-cv-00004-SLG-KFR
ORDER RE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On January 6, 2021, Wyatt N. Redfox, a self-represented prisoner, filed a
Prisoner’s Complaint under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Pursuant to
District of Alaska Local Magistrate Judge Rules, the case was initially referred to
the Honorable Magistrate Judge Matthew M. Scoble.2 The magistrate judge
reviewed the complaint, as required by federal law; explained the deficiencies to
Mr. Redfox; and permitted him to file an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary
dismissal. On July 8, 2021, Mr. Redfox filed his First Amended Complaint, along
with an Application to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee.3 Judge Scoble granted
Mr. Redfox’s Application to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee at Docket 15, but
found the amended complaint deficient, dismissed it, and again permitted Mr.
1 Docket 1.
2 Docket 5.
3 Docket 13.
Case 3:21-cv-00004-SLG-KFR Document 24 Filed 02/11/22 Page 1 of 4

Case No. 3:21-cv-00004-SLG, Redfox v. Doe, et al.
Order re Final Report and Recommendation
Page 2 of 4
Redfox to amend or voluntarily dismiss. On September 14, 2021, Mr. Redfox filed
a Second Amended Complaint.4 The matter was then referred to Magistrate Judge
Kyle F. Reardon.5 Judge Reardon reviewed the Second Amended Complaint and
at Docket 22 issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended
that this action be dismissed with prejudice. Mr. Redfox filed an objection to the
Report and Recommendation at Docket 23.
The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That
statute provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”6 A court is
to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”7
But as to those topics on which no objections are filed, “[n]either the Constitution
nor [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings
and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”8
The magistrate judge recommended that the Court dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint with prejudice. In his objection, Mr. Redfox first asserts that
4 Docket 17.
5 Docket 21.
6 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
7 Id.
8 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court
review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard,
when neither party objects to those findings.”).
Case 3:21-cv-00004-SLG-KFR Document 24 Filed 02/11/22 Page 2 of 4

Case No. 3:21-cv-00004-SLG, Redfox v. Doe, et al.
Order re Final Report and Recommendation
Page 3 of 4
judicial immunity should not apply to the state magistrate judge’s conduct at the
arraignment. He cites to Harper v. Merckle, a Fifth Circuit case in which the
appellate court held that judicial immunity did not apply to Judge Merckle.9 That
case is inapposite. The circuit court recognized that its holding was “exceedingly
narrow and is tailored to this, the rarest of factual settings”—the setting “when it is
beyond reasonable dispute that a judge has acted out of personal motivation and
has used his judicial office as an offensive weapon to vindicate personal
objectives, and it further appears certain that no party has invoked the judicial
machinery for any purpose at all.”10 No such circumstances were present at
Plaintiff’s arraignment here.
Second, Mr. Redfox asserts that prosecutorial immunity should not apply to
the prosecutor’s attempt to use “Courtview,” the state court records search
function, “as a tool to support probable cause against Plaintiff.”11 This assertion is
without merit. The prosecutor was performing tasks “intimately associated with the
judicial phase of the criminal process” to which prosecutorial immunity applies.12
Third, Mr. Redfox objects to the magistrate judge’s recommendations
regarding his claims against the probation officers and police officers involved in
9 638 F.2d 848 (5th Cir. Unit B Mar. 1981).
10 Id. at 859.
11 Docket 23 at 3.
12 Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976).
Case 3:21-cv-00004-SLG-KFR Document 24 Filed 02/11/22 Page 3 of 4

Case No. 3:21-cv-00004-SLG, Redfox v. Doe, et al.
Order re Final Report and Recommendation
Page 4 of 4
his arrest in March 2020. He asserts that there was insufficient evidence that he
had violated the terms of his probation and hence, these individuals violated his
constitutional right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures.
He acknowledges that he posted bail on April 3, 2020, but maintains that he was
nonetheless held without justification from March 27, 2020 until April 3. On de
novo review, the Court agrees with and adopts the analysis of the magistrate judge
on these points.13 The Court further agrees that granting further leave to amend
would be futile at this juncture, such that dismissal with prejudice is warranted at
this time.
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation in its
entirety, and IT IS ORDERED that the Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED
with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment accordingly.
DATED this 11th day of February, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13 See Docket 22 at 14–17.
Case 3:21-cv-00004-SLG-KFR Document 24 Filed 02/11/22 Page 4 of 4