41 F.4th 1141
9th Cir.2022Background
- Washington's Indeterminate Sentencing Review Board (Review Board) reviews sentences of convicted sex offenders under RCW 9.95.420 and must hold a release-determination hearing within 120 days of arrival when a minimum term has expired or will expire.
- Dallin Fort was convicted of child rape, went through resentencing and appeals, and after a 2017 conviction was transferred to a WA facility having served over his minimum term.
- Fort alleges the Review Board failed to schedule his statutorily required hearing timely (statute referenced "on or about" Oct. 20, 2017); the hearing actually occurred July 25, 2018 and the Board recommended release on Aug. 14, 2018; Fort was released in 2018.
- Fort sued the State, the Review Board, and board members in 2020 asserting false imprisonment, negligence, and civil-rights claims based on the alleged delay.
- The State Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), asserting quasi-judicial immunity for the Board’s actions (including scheduling); the district court granted the motion.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the scheduling of hearings pursuant to RCW 9.95.420 is part of the Board’s quasi-judicial function and covered by absolute quasi-judicial immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether scheduling a Review Board hearing is protected by quasi-judicial immunity | Scheduling is an administrative, ministerial task and not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity | Scheduling is integral to the Board’s judicial decision process and thus protected by absolute quasi-judicial immunity | Scheduling is "part and parcel" of the decision process and protected by quasi-judicial immunity; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Castillo v. Castillo (In re Castillo), 297 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2002) (held scheduling and notice of hearings by a bankruptcy trustee are protected by quasi-judicial immunity when integral to judicial function)
- Wilson v. Kelkhoff, 86 F.3d 1438 (7th Cir. 1996) (parole-board scheduling and acts "inexorably connected" to revocation procedures invoke absolute immunity)
- Thompson v. Duke, 882 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir. 1989) (failure to schedule/hold a timely parole hearing addressed in immunity analysis)
- Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429 (1993) (court reporter’s purely ministerial duty is not functionally comparable to a judge’s and is not protected by judicial immunity)
- Sellars v. Procunier, 641 F.2d 1295 (9th Cir. 1981) (parole-board officials perform functions comparable to judges and may receive quasi-judicial immunity)
- Taggart v. State, 822 P.2d 243 (Wash. 1992) (Washington precedent recognizing immunity for statutorily related judicial/quasi-judicial actions)