James Davis v. State of Oregon

MEMORANDUM

Even assuming that James Ray Davis’s § 1983 claims are not precluded by the settlement agreement in Davis’s habeas action or Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), such claims fail because Davis does not raise a genuine issue of material fact that his constitutional rights were violated. Davis fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the appellees knew that his presentence incarceration credits had been improperly calculated or were deliberately indifferent to a risk of miscalculation, as needed to show a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir.1985) (en banc). Davis also fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the appellees investigated his complaints inadequately or deprived him of an opportunity to be heard in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Cf. Alexander v. Pemil, 916 F.2d 1392, 1398 (9th Cir.1990); Haygood, 769 F.2d at 1357 . The calculation of Davis’s sentence involved only an application of state law to undisputed facts, and thus did not trigger…