IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10638
Conference Calendar
__________________
GEORGE FRANKLIN ALDRIDGE, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JANET WINDHAM, parole officer,
S. SUTTON, parole officer,
MARY SCHEVER, parole officer,
RETA FLORES, parole member,
GARY MCMILLIAN, parole member,
JACK D. KYLE, parole member,
W.R. BEASLEY, parole member,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:94-CV-723-Y
- - - - - - - - - -
(October 18, 1995)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George Franklin Aldridge, Sr., a Texas state prisoner, filed
this pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
against parole officers Janet Windham, S. Sutton, and Mary
Schever, and against parole board members Reta Flores, Gary
McMillian, Jack D. Kyle, and W. R. Beasley. Aldridge alleged
that Windham, McMillian, and Beasley conspired to revoke
Aldridge's mandatory supervised release by imposing special
conditions without Aldridge's knowledge and then contending that
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No.95-10638
-2-
he violated those conditions. Aldridge also alleged that Sutton
aided in the conspiracy by giving false testimony regarding
Aldridge's behavior at Aldridge's preliminary hearing. Aldridge
alleged that Schever was not impartial in her role as the
preliminary hearing officer because she presided over the hearing
with the impression that Aldridge was guilty.
Aldridge alleged the personal participation in his
revocations proceedings of parole officers Windham and Sutton,
board members McMillian and Beasley, and hearing officer Schever.
Because each of these individuals was participating in the quasi-
judicial activity of mandatory supervision revocation
proceedings, they are absolutely immune from damages. See McGrew
v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.
1995); Thomas v. Scherer, 94-11006, slip op. at 2-3 (5th Cir.
March 22, 1995) (unpublished).
Because Aldridge did not allege that Kyle or Flores
personally participated in his revocation proceedings, they are
not entitled to absolute immunity. McGrew, 47 F.3d at 161.
However, Aldridge has not alleged a § 1983 claim against these
defendants under Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994).
McGrew, 47 F.3d at 161. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing Aldridge's claims against the defendants
with prejudice. See Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284-85 (5th
Cir. 1994) (affirming dismissal with prejudice of § 1983 claims
deemed without merit under Heck and doctrine of absolute
immunity).
AFFIRMED.