Taylor v. McBroome et al

Filing 9

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Proceed Informa Pauperis; dismissing Taylor's claims against McBroome, Vailes, and Felts with prejudice because they are entitled to absolute immunity when considering and deciding parole matters; and, dismissing Taylor's complaint with prejudice. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 2/22/2012. (dmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

ROBERT C. TAYLOR

v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 4:11-cv-888 DPM

THOMAS MCBROOME, Parole Officer;

ASHLEY V AILES, Parole Hearing Examiner;

JOHN FELTS, Arkansas Parole Board Chairman;

and RAY HOBBS, Director,

Arkansas Department of Correction

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Taylor, who is no longer in custody, moves again to proceed in forma

pauperis. DocumentNo. 8. The motion is granted. 28U.s.C.§1915(a)(1). This
Court, however, must also screen his complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Taylor
alleges that parole officer Thomas McBroome, parole hearing examiner
Ashley Vailes, and Arkansas Parole Board Chairman John Felts violated his
due process, double jeopardy, and speedy trial rights in connection with his
February 2011 parole revocation and later placement in a drug-treatment
program in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Document No. 2. Taylor's
claims against McBroome, Vailes, and Felts are dismissed with prejudice
because they are entitled to absolute immunity when considering and

deciding parole matters. Mayorga v. Missouri, 442 F.3d 1128, 1131 (8th Cir.

2006); Figg v. Russell, 433 F.3d 593, 598 (8th Cir. 2006).
Taylor also claims that Ray Hobbs, the Director of the Arkansas
Department of Correction, violated his due process rights by refusing to
release him from prison in April 2011. This allegation is meritless. Taylor
concedes that he was not legally entitled to be released from prison then,
because the parole board had affirmed his parole revocation and a detainer
was pending against him on outstanding criminal charges. Document No.2,

at 6-7. Further, Hobbs is entitled to absolute immunity from a § 1983 damage
claim arising from his decision to comply with a facially valid order of
confinement. Figg, 433F.3dat599; Pattersonv. VonRiesen,999F.2d 1235, 1239
(8th Cir. 1993).
Motion, Document No.8, granted. Taylor's complaint is dismissed with
prejudice. This dismissal constitutes a strike, and the Court certifies that an

in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(a)(3) & (g).

-2­

So Ordered.

~-,

-3­