[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 7, 2008
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 07-14555
CLERK
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00285-CV-4-RH-WCS
RANDALL LAMONT ROLLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NICOLE RAYSOR,
BRIAN ENGLES,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
LAW OFFICES OF FRANK SHEFFIELD,
M. LILIA DANDELAKE, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(March 7, 2008)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Randall Rolle appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. See 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The district court concluded that Rolle’s allegations that his
constitutional rights were violated during a state probation revocation proceeding
failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Rolle’s complaint fails on several grounds. The central premise of Rolle’s
complaint that his probation revocation is invalid fails because, under Heck v.
Humphrey, a state prisoner cannot “seek[] damages in a § 1983 suit” when
judgment in his favor “would necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction or
sentence.” 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S. Ct. 2374, 2372 (1994). Rolle’s complaint
that his federal rights were violated by the agents of the Florida Department of
Corrections, the Law Office of Frank Sheffield, the Florida State Attorney’s
Office, the Florida Second Judicial Circuit, the Florida Office of the Attorney
General, and the Florida First District Court of Appeals fails because there is no
respondeat superior liability available under section 1983. Cottone v. Jenne, 326
F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003). Rolle’s complaint against the Florida agencies
and their officers also fails because these state entities are not “persons” within the
meaning of section 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71,
109 S. Ct. 2304, 2312 (1989). Rolle’s complaint against Judge Richard L. Hood,
2
Judge Thomas Howell Bateman III, Judge Richard W. Ervin, Judge Peter D.
Webster, and Judge Paul Mahlon Hawkes fails because those judges are entitled to
absolute immunity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356–57, 98 S. Ct. 1099,
1105 (1978). Prosecutor John Joseph Maceluch Jr., Assistant Attorney General
Sherrie Rollinson, probation officer Nicole Raysor, and Raysor’s supervisor, Brian
Engles, are also immune from Rolle’s complaint. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424
U.S. 409, 427–28 , 96 S. Ct. 984, 993–94 (1976); Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F.2d
1489, 1490 (11th Cir. 1984). Rolle’s complaint against Lilia Dandelake, who
represented Rolle in his probation revocation proceeding, fails because a defense
attorney is not a state actor under section 1983. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454
U.S. 312, 325, 102 S. Ct. 445, 453 (1981).
The dismissal of Rolle’s complaint is AFFIRMED.
3