United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 18, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-10428
Summary Calendar
KARSTEN GRANT KENNEDY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF TEXAS PARDONS AND PAROLES;
GERALD GARRETT, Chairman,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:03-CV-291-C
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Karsten Grant Kennedy, Texas prisoner # 1036345, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on
immunity grounds, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e. Kennedy had argued that he was improperly denied
release on mandatory supervision, and the district court had
concluded that the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (the Board)
was entitled to sovereign immunity and that Gerald Garrett, the
Board chairman, was entitled to absolute immunity.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-10428
-2-
Kennedy does not challenge the district court’s conclusion
that his damage claims against the Board are barred by the
Eleventh Amendment. See McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons
& Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1995). He instead asserts
that his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are
preserved. Even if these claims survive sovereign immunity,
Kennedy is not entitled to relief. See Bickford v. Int’l
Speedway Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir. 1981). Because
Kennedy’s requested relief is immediate release to mandatory
supervision, “his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas
corpus.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973); see
also Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998).
Kennedy also contends that Garrett was not protected by
absolute immunity because he did not participate personally in
the decision to deny his release. He contends that Garrett
failed to adopt policies to protect prisoners’ rights during the
review process. Any claims for injunctive relief are barred
because Kennedy’s sole remedy for immediate release is habeas.
Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499. Kennedy’s claims for damages against
Garrett are unavailing, as he has not shown that the decision of
the Board has been overturned or invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
Kennedy has not established that the district court erred in
dismissing his complaint. See Aguilar v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal
No. 04-10428
-3-
Justice, 160 F.3d 1052, 1053-54 (5th Cir. 1998). The judgment of
the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.