FILED
MAR - 9 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk Us o·
Sank . . 'strict ana
rUPtcy COurts
PERNELL A. DAVIS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action NolO 0390
)
u.s. PAROLE BOARD, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the Court upon review of plaintiff s application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The application will be granted but the
complaint will be dismissed.
Plaintiff is a District of Columbia Code offender who was sentenced to two concurrent
terms of imprisonment in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. See CompI. at 1, 3
(page numbers designated by the Court). According to plaintiff, he was released on parole in
1991 and his parole term expired in 2004. Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that, notwithstanding the
alleged termination of his parole term, the u.s. Parole Board issued a warrant for his arrest,
revoked his parole, and caused his return to custody until June 20, 2011. Id. Generally, plaintiff
claims that its actions violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution, see id.
at 4, and he demands unspecified monetary damages "for pain and suffering and also for the loss
of ... personal property that [he] had before the parole board issue[ d] a warrant without authority
for [his] rearrest[.]" Id. at 5.
The Court construes the complaint as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.c. § 1983 against
3
the United States Parole Commission ("USPC"). To recover under § 1983, plaintiff must show
that the USPC was acting under color of state law; this provision does not apply to federal
officials acting under color of federal law. See, e.g., Williams v. United States, 396 F.3d 412,
415-16 (D.C. Cir. 2005). The USPC is a federal entity, see D.C. Code § 24-133 (a) (2001)
(establishing CSOSA "within the executive branch of the Federal Government"), and, therefore,
is not subject to suit under § 1983. Moreover, sovereign immunity bars a claim for money
damages against the USPC because of its status as a federal government entity. Settles v. United
States Parole Comm 'n, 429 F.3d 1098, 1106 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ("Despite its role in administering
parole for D.C. Code offenders, the [USPC] retains the immunity it is due as an arm of the
federal sovereign."). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See, e.g., Epps v. Howes, No. 06-717(RMC), 2007 WL 2248072, at *3 (D.D.C. July
31, 2007) (dismissing claims brought under 42 U.S.c. §1983 against the United States, the
Department of Justice, and the USPC for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because these entities
were protected from suit by sovereign immunity).
An Order is issued separately.
Davis v. U.S. Parole Board
Combined Opinion