Allison et al v. Parole Board Director et al
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 in full. Any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 11/29/2017. Mailed to Allison (TAG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
STEPHEN DOUGLAS ALLISON,
PAROLE BOARD DIRECTOR,
PAROLE BOARD MEMEBERS, and
Plaintiff Stephen D. Allison filed an Amended Complaint in compliance
with the Court’s February 1, 2017, Order. (Doc. 10.) The Court has construed the
following claims from Allison’s Amended Complaint: (1) Allison’s 2006 probation
revocation sentence proved unlawful in violation of res judicata, ex-post facto, and
double jeopardy; (2) the Parole Board violated state and federal statutes and Parole
Board manuals; and (3) the Parole Board denied Allison due process by relying
upon false and/or misleading reports in denying him parole. (Doc. 15 at 4.)
United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered Findings and
Recommendations in this matter on August 29, 2017. Id. The Court granted
Allison until November 20, 2017, to file any objections to Judge Johnston’s
Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 18.) Neither party filed objections. When a
party makes no objections, the Court need not review de novo the proposed
Findings and Recommendations. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1986).
This Court will review Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations,
however, for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach.,
Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).
Judge Johnston determined that Parole Board members hold an absolute
quasi-judicial immunity for decisions to grant, deny, or revoke parole. (Doc. 15 at
5.) Allison may not hold members of the Parole Board liable for their decision to
deny or revoke his parole. Id. Judge Johnston determined that the Montana State
District Court revoked Allison’s probation and resentenced him. Id. Judge
Johnston construed this as a challenge to his probation revocation sentence. Judge
Johnston further determined that Allison may only bring a claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 regarding the constitutionality of the revocation of his probation if the
revocation has been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
Allison remains incarcerated, and, therefore, Judge Johnston found that Heck
barred Allison’s challenge to his probation revocation sentence. (Doc. 15 at 6.)
Judge Johnston concluded that whether the Parole Board followed state law
or its own internal procedures constitutes an issue of state law. Id. Allison’s
allegations regarding his parole violating Montana statutes or Parole Board
procedures do not qualify as a federal claim for violation of due process. Id. at 7.
Judge Johnston determined that Allison failed to state a claim regarding his
allegation that members of the Parole Board and Institutional Probation Parole
Officer staff generated false or misleading reports for consideration which denied
him his right to discharge his sentence. Id. at 7. The Constitution only requires that
Allison be provided an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons
regarding the denial of his parole. Judge Johnston found that Allison did not allege
denial of this process. Id. at 8.
The Court has reviewed Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations
for clear error. The Court finds no error in Judge Johnston’s Findings and
Recommendations, and adopts them in full.
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations
(Doc. 15), are ADOPTED IN FULL.
IT IS ORDERED that matter is DISMISSED.
IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close this matter and enter
judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall have the docket reflect
that pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that
any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. The record makes
clear that the Complaint is frivolous as it lacks arguable substance in law or fact.
DATED this 29th day of November, 2017.
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?