govinfo:USCOURTS-mtd-9_26-cv-00074-0

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA 
MISSOULA DIVISION 
 
GENE E. SALOIS, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
 vs. 
 
JUDGE TARA ELLIOTT, et al. 
 
 Defendants. 
Cause No. CV 26-74-M-BMM 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 Plaintiff Gene E. Salois (“Salois”) has filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Amended 
Complaint against Judge Tara Elliott and County Attorneys Matt Jennings and 
Ryan Mickelson (collectively “Defendants”). (Doc. 5.) The Complaint fails to state 
a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court dismisses Salosi’s Complaint. 
 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 
 A. Parties 
 Salois is a pretrial detainee. (Doc. 2 at 4.) Salois names Montana State 
District Judge Tara Elliott and Missoula County Attorneys Ryan Mickelson and 
Matt Jennings as defendants. (Doc. 5 at 2.) 
B. Allegations 
 Salois cites 18 U.S.C. § 1152, as his basis of jurisdiction for his claim. (Doc. 
5 at 3.) Section 1152 governs federal criminal jurisdiction and Indian tribal 

2 
 
exclusive jurisdiction. (Id.) Salois states that he is a member of the Little Shell 
Tribe of Chippewa. (Id.) Salois alleges a series of bad acts by Defendants, 
including that he was denied health, emotional, dental, and diet care. (Id. at 4.) 
Salois claims next that he was tortured. (Id.) Salois alleges that Judge Elliott denied 
him due process and freedom of religion; and he was forced to take unwanted 
medication. (Id.) Salois asserts that “each defendant was involved in the mass 
cover up and over criminalization of the fabricated racketeering charges . . ..” (Id.) 
Salois finally focuses on his treatment in the detention center, alleging that 
Defendants intended “for [his] demise slow death by torcher [sic] and pharma 
sorcery.” (Id.) Salois requests injunctive relief and money damages. (Id. at 4-5.) 
II. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A 
 Salois is a pretrial detainee proceeding in forma pauperis. The Court must 
review his Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. Sections 1915A(b) and 
1915(e)(2)(B) require the Court to dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis 
and/or by a prisoner against a governmental defendant if it is frivolous or 
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint is 
frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “A case is malicious if it was filed with the intention or 
desire to harm another.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). A 

3 
 
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if a plaintiff fails 
to allege the “grounds” of his “entitlement to relief.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quotation omitted). 
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a complaint 
“that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the 
claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A 
complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim 
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 
(quotations omitted). A complaint’s allegations must cross “the line from 
conceivable to plausible.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680. 
 “A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,’ and ‘a pro se 
complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than 
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Erickson v. Pardu, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); 
cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice”). 
Salois has identified only immune Defendants in his Amended Complaint. 
Judges and judicial staff are all immune from suit under § 1983 for actions taken 
within the scope of their employment. Salois cannot state claims against Judge 
Elliott under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “because [a] judge is absolutely immune for judicial 
acts.” Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th 
Cir. 2003); see also Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991). Salois does not 

4 
 
allege any plausible facts that show any of Judge Elliott’s conduct was outside the 
scope of her duties as a judge. In fact, Salois alleges no facts regarding Judge 
Elliott’s behavior, other than to claim she was part of a conspiracy against him, 
that apparently arose out of ruling against him in court. Ruling on Salois’ cases 
remains at the heart of a judge’s duties. There is no plausible connection between 
Judge Elliott and Salois’ conditions of confinement. Salois has failed to state a 
claim that would avoid Judge Elliott’s immunity. 
Likewise, Defendants Mikelson and Jennings are immune from suit. 
Prosecuting attorneys who act within the scope of their duties are absolutely 
immune from a suit brought for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “insofar as that 
conduct is ‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.’ ” 
Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 486 (1991) (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 
409, 431 (1976)); see also Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1076, 1078 (9th Cir. 
1986). This is so even if the prosecutor has violated a plaintiff's constitutional 
rights or acts with malicious intent. Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1028-29 (9th 
Cir. 2003); Genzler v. Longanbach, 410 F.3d 630, 637 (9th Cir. 2005). Prosecutors 
are absolutely immune from suit when they function as advocates. Imbler, 424 
U.S. at 430–31. “Prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for the 
consequences of their advocacy, however inept or malicious, because it is filtered 
through a neutral and detached judicial body[.]” Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 

5 
 
896, 913 (9th Cir. 2012). Again, Salois has alleged no facts regarding the 
individual conduct of Defendants Mikelson and Jennings, other than his blanket 
assertion that they were part of a conspiracy against him. There is no plausible 
connection between Defendants Mikelson and Jennings and Salois’ conditions of 
confinement. Salois has failed to state a claim that would avoid Defendants 
Jennings’s and Mikelson’s prosecutorial immunity. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Salois fails to state a claim against Defendants. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 
1915A require a court to dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim upon which 
relief may be granted, but these statutes do not deprive the district court of its 
discretion to grant or deny leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 
(9th Cir. 2000). The Court can decline to grant leave to amend if “it determines 
that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” 
Lopez, 203 F.3d. at 1127 (quoting Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 
1995)). The Court concludes that amendment would be futile. Therefore, the 
Complaint must be dismissed. 
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 
1. Salois’ Complaint (Doc. 5) is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is 
directed to close this matter and enter judgment. The Clerk of Court is directed to 
have the docket reflect that the Court certifies pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3)(A) of the 

6 
 
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that any appeal of this decision would not be 
taken in good faith. 
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to have the docket reflect that the 
dismissal of this Complaint counts as a strike against Salois within the meaning of 
28 U.S.C. § 1915. 
 DATED this 15th day of June, 2026. 
 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight