Robert Miles v. Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles

Case: 09-20744 Document: 00511124066 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/27/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
May 27, 2010
No. 09-20744
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

ROBERT B. MILES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PAROLE DIVISION,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:09-CV-3193

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert B. Miles, Texas prisoner # 536884, filed a civil rights complaint
against the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole (Board) and the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice Parole Division (TDCJ), alleging that his parole
was wrongfully revoked due to his refusal to comply with special conditions of
parole imposed on sex offenders. The district court dismissed the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, concluding that the Board and the TDCJ have

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
Case: 09-20744 Document: 00511124066 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/27/2010
No. 09-20744

immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and that Miles’s claims are
barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). We review the dismissal of
the complaint de novo. Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998).
Both the Board and the TDCJ are immune from suit under the Eleventh
Amendment. See Littles v. Board of Pardon and Paroles Division, 68 F.3d 122,
123 (5th Cir. 1995); Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989)
(recognizing that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court by a
citizen against agencies or departments of his state). Moreover, a challenge to
a parole decision must satisfy the requirements of Heck to state a claim for relief.
McGrew v. Tex. Bd. Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1995). Under
Heck, a plaintiff seeking damages for an allegedly unconstitutional
imprisonment “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 a determination, or called into question by a federal
court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” 512 U.S. at 486-87. Miles does not
allege that the decision to revoke his probation has been reversed, expunged, set
aside, or called into question as Heck requires.
Miles has not established that the district court erred in dismissing his
§ 1983 lawsuit. See § 1915A(b)(1),(2) ; Ruiz, 160 F.3d at 275. The judgment of
the district court is thus affirmed.
AFFIRMED.