Littles v. Board of Pardons & Paroles Division

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 95-50536

Conference Calendar.

Curtis Wayne LITTLES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES DIVISION, Defendant-Appellee.

Nov. 2, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas.

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Wayne Littles appeals the district court's dismissal of

his civil rights suit as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(d)*. Littles, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued

the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (the Board) because it

allegedly failed to provide him a written statement of its reasons

for revoking his parole. Littles requested damages and unspecified

declaratory and injunctive relief.

While on release, Littles received notice that he had violated

the conditions of his parole. After a parole-revocation hearing,

Littles was informed that he would receive written notice of the

Board's decision including reasons for the decision. Littles

asserts that the Board's failure to provide reasons for revoking

*
The district court dismissed Littles's complaint with
prejudice prior to service; this court treats the dismissal as a
§ 1915(d) dismissal. Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 281 (5th
Cir.1994).

1
his parole violated his due process rights and deprived him of a

liberty interest in his freedom from incarceration.

A complaint filed in forma pauperis may be dismissed if the

complaint is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Eason v. Thaler, 14

F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir.1994). A § 1915(d) dismissal is reviewed for an

abuse of discretion. Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th

Cir.1993).

The district court concluded that Littles's § 1983 claim

questioned the validity of his conviction and that Littles had not

satisfied the requirements of Heck v. Humphrey, --- U.S. ----, ----

, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2372, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), by having his

conviction reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or called into

question by a federal court's writ of habeas corpus. Thus, the

district court dismissed Littles's complaint as not cognizable

under § 1983 pursuant to Heck.

"Heck applies to proceedings which call into question the

fact or duration of parole." Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 177

(5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 148, ---

L.Ed.2d ---- (1995). Even if a complaint is subject to dismissal

under Heck, it remains appropriate for district courts to resolve

the question of immunity before reaching the Heck analysis. Boyd

v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 284 (5th Cir.1994).

"The Texas Board of Pardon and Paroles, a division of the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, is cloaked with Eleventh

Amendment immunity." McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons and Paroles,

47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.1995). Parole officers are entitled to

2
absolute immunity from liability for their conduct in parole

decisions and in the exercise of their decision-making powers. See

Walter v. Torres, 917 F.2d 1379, 1384 (5th Cir.1990); see Hulsey

v. Owens, 63 F.3d 354, 356-57 (5th Cir.1995) (failure to provide

timely a copy of parole-revocation officer's findings is conduct

protected by absolute immunity). Littles's § 1983 claims against

the Board are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Littles's action is also barred under Heck. Heck holds that

in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by
actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or
sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into
question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus.

Heck, --- U.S. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 2372. Littles has questioned

the validity of the confinement resulting from his

parole-revocation hearing, and he has not alleged that the Board's

decision has been reversed, expunged, set aside, or called into

question, as Heck mandates.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it

dismissed Littles's complaint.

AFFIRMED.

3