Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 95-50536
Conference Calendar.
Curtis Wayne LITTLES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES DIVISION, Defendant-Appellee.
Nov. 2, 1995.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas.
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Wayne Littles appeals the district court's dismissal of
his civil rights suit as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(d)*. Littles, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued
the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (the Board) because it
allegedly failed to provide him a written statement of its reasons
for revoking his parole. Littles requested damages and unspecified
declaratory and injunctive relief.
While on release, Littles received notice that he had violated
the conditions of his parole. After a parole-revocation hearing,
Littles was informed that he would receive written notice of the
Board's decision including reasons for the decision. Littles
asserts that the Board's failure to provide reasons for revoking
*The district court dismissed Littles's complaint with
prejudice prior to service; this court treats the dismissal as a
§ 1915(d) dismissal. Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 281 (5th
Cir.1994).
1

his parole violated his due process rights and deprived him of a
liberty interest in his freedom from incarceration.
A complaint filed in forma pauperis may be dismissed if the
complaint is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Eason v. Thaler, 14
F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir.1994). A § 1915(d) dismissal is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion. Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th
Cir.1993).
The district court concluded that Littles's § 1983 claim
questioned the validity of his conviction and that Littles had not
satisfied the requirements of Heck v. Humphrey, --- U.S. ----, ----
, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2372, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), by having his
conviction reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into
question by a federal court's writ of habeas corpus. Thus, the
district court dismissed Littles's complaint as not cognizable
under § 1983 pursuant to Heck.
"Heck applies to proceedings which call into question the
fact or duration of parole." Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 177
(5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 148, ---
L.Ed.2d ---- (1995). Even if a complaint is subject to dismissal
under Heck, it remains appropriate for district courts to resolve
the question of immunity before reaching the Heck analysis. Boyd
v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir.1994).
"The Texas Board of Pardon and Paroles, a division of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, is cloaked with Eleventh
Amendment immunity." McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons and Paroles,
47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.1995). Parole officers are entitled to
2

absolute immunity from liability for their conduct in parole
decisions and in the exercise of their decision-making powers. See
Walter v. Torres, 917 F.2d 1379, 1384 (5th Cir.1990); see Hulsey
v. Owens, 63 F.3d 354, 356-57 (5th Cir.1995) (failure to provide
timely a copy of parole-revocation officer's findings is conduct
protected by absolute immunity). Littles's § 1983 claims against
the Board are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Littles's action is also barred under Heck. Heck holds that
in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by
actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or
sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into
question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus.
Heck, --- U.S. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 2372. Littles has questioned
the
validity
of
the
confinement
resulting from his
parole-revocation hearing, and he has not alleged that the Board's
decision has been reversed, expunged, set aside, or called into
question, as Heck mandates.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it
dismissed Littles's complaint.
AFFIRMED.

3