Opinion
CASE NO. 01-CV-70662-DT.
March 12, 2001
JUDGMENT
This matter having come before the Court on a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, United States District Judge VICTORIA A. ROBERTS presiding, and pursuant to the order entered on 12 MAR 2001, the Court DISMISSES the Complaint.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
I. Introduction
This matter is before the Court on the pro se civil rights Complaint of Leroy J. Fleming ("Plaintiff"). The Complaint, which is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeks declaratory and monetary relief.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner at Ryan Correctional Facility in Detroit, Michigan. Defendants are: Bill Martin, Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections; the Michigan Parole Board ("Parole Board"); parole supervisors John J. Remilliet, Kirk McVittie, and Celia Doyle; and parole agents Nicole Williams, Keith Hollingshed, and Harry Bobowski.
The Complaint and exhibits allege that Plaintiff was released on parole on January 29, 1997, and given a discharge date of January 29, 1999. He violated the conditions of parole on more than one occasion. As a result, his discharge date of January 29, 1999, was extended three times. Plaintiff reported to law enforcement officials on March 1, 2000, after learning of an outstanding warrant for his arrest.
Plaintiff alleges that he had a protected liberty interest in a discharge date of January 29, 1999, and in credit for time spent at residential drug treatment centers. He also alleges that defendants deprived him of certain procedural protections during the parole revocation process. He asserts claims under state and federal law.
II. Discussion
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee for this action. The Court may dismiss an indigent prisoner's civil rights complaint at any time if the action is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has explained that
[t]he requirements § 1915(e)(2) overlap the criteria of § 1915A. Section 1915A is restricted to prisoners who sue government entities, officers, or employees. In contrast, § 1915(e)(2) is neither restricted to actions brought by prisoners, nor to cases involving government defendants. Further, § 1915A is applicable at the initial stage of the litigation. Section 1915(e)(2) is applicable throughout the entire litigation process.In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1997).
A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). "A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact if it contains factual allegations that are `fantastic or delusional' or if it is based on legal theories that are indisputably meritless." Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-38). Sua sponte dismissal is appropriate if a complaint "falls within the requirements of § 1915(e)(2) when filed." McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 609 (6th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff's Complaint lacks an arguable basis in law because it challenges the fact or duration of confinement. Plaintiff has no right to money damages for allegedly unlawful confinement until he demonstrates that the decisions to revoke parole and deny sentencing credits were invalidated by state officials or by a federal habeas court. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); Littles v. Board of Pardons Paroles Div., 68 F.3d 122, 123 (5th Cir. 1995). A judgment in Plaintiff's favor would imply that the contested decisions concerning parole were invalid, and Heck forbids that result. Huey v. Stine, 230 F.3d 226, 230 (6th Cir. 2000). To the extent that Plaintiff seeks release from confinement, his sole remedy is a habeas corpus petition, following exhaustion of state remedies. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 n. 14, 500 (1973).
As of the date of his Complaint, Plaintiff was still pursuing a mandamus petition and a habeas corpus complaint in state court. He has not shown that state court remedies for his claims are exhausted.
For the following additional reasons, Plaintiff's claims against the named defendants fail to state a claim for relief. The Parole Board enjoys immunity from suit because the Eleventh Amendment bars civil rights actions against a state and its departments when, as here, there is no evidence that the state consented to suit. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978); Thiokol Corp. v. Dep't of Treasury, State of Mich., Revenue Div., 987 F.2d 376, 381 (6th Cir. 1993). Defendants Nicole Williams, Keith Hollingshed, and Harry Bobowski and their supervisors John J. Remilliet, Kirk McVittie, and Celia Doyle enjoy immunity from damages liability for their acts or omissions as parole officers. Anton v. Getty, 78 F.3d 393, 396 (8th Cir. 1996); Littles, 68 F.3d at 123.
III. Conclusion
The Complaint lacks an arguable basis in law, and it seeks monetary relief from defendants who are immune from damages liability. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). An appeal from this order would be frivolous and could not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); McGore, 14 F.3d at 609.