# Davison v. Smith

> District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · November 19, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10744407

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
- **Decided:** November 19, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10744407

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ALONZO GABRIEL DAVISON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) NO. CIV-24-0483-HE
)
CLIFFORD J. SMITH, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER

Plaintiff Alonzo Gabriel Davison, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting violations of his
constitutional rights. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), the matter was referred
to Magistrate Judge Chris M. Stephens for initial proceedings. On October 17, 2024,
Magistrate Judge Stephens issued a Report and Recommendation recommending the
dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Stephens
recommended plaintiff’s claims against defendants Clifford Smith, Scott Rowland, Rob
Hydson, Gary Lumpkin, David Lewis, Tim Tymkovich, Jerome Holmes, Joel Carson, and
Stephen Kunzweiler be dismissed with prejudice based on absolute immunity and
plaintiff’s remaining claims be dismissed without prejudice based on Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994). Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report and
Recommendation by November 7, 2024. Plaintiff has objected to the Report triggering de
novo review of matters to which objection has been raised.
Plaintiff asserts that his claims do not attack the validity of his current sentence and,
therefore, are not barred by Heck. However, in his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the
state courts did not have subject matter jurisdiction to prosecute him, an allegation that

directly challenges the validity of plaintiff’s conviction and sentence. Plaintiff also asserts
Magistrate Judge Stephens misstated the claims he was asserting. Upon de novo review,
the court concludes there has been no misstatement of plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff further
objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the defendant judges are entitled to absolute
immunity. The United States Supreme Court has held that judges have absolute judicial

immunity for acts taken in their judicial capacity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,
355-57 (1978). Because plaintiff’s claims challenge the defendant judges’ actions and
rulings, the defendant judges have absolute immunity. Finally, plaintiff objects to
Magistrate Judge Stephens’ finding that defendant Kunzweiler has absolute immunity.
“Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for their decisions to prosecute, their

investigatory or evidence-gathering actions, their evaluation of evidence, their
determination of whether probable cause exists, and their determination of what
information to show the court.” Nielander v. Board of Cnty. Comm’rs of Cnty. of
Republic, Kan., 582 F.3d 1155, 1164 (10th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, upon the court’s de novo review, the Report and Recommendation

[Doc. #13] is ADOPTED, and the claims against defendants Clifford Smith, Scott
Rowland, Rob Hydson, Gary Lumpkin, David Lewis, Tim Tymkovich, Jerome Holmes,
Joel Carson, and Stephen Kunzweiler are DISMISSED with prejudice based upon absolute
immunity, and plaintiff's remaining claims are DISMISSED without prejudice as barred
by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 19th day of November, 2024.

ip Lh
JO XTON
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10744407. Public record. Not legal advice.