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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?