Holmes v. Crosby
| Decision Date | 27 June 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-15233 Non-Argument Calendar.,04-15233 Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Citation | 418 F.3d 1256 |
| Parties | Paul HOLMES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bob CROSBY, Garfield Hammonds, Jr., Eugene P. Walker, Betty Ann Cook, Walter S. Ray, Bobby Whitworth, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Jacqueline Faye Bunn, Dept. of Law, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellants.
Paul Holmes, Snellville, GA, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
The defendants in this civil rights action, members of the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles and an individual parole officer (collectively the "Board"), appeal the district court's denial of their motion for summary judgment.
On December 10, 1996, Plaintiff Paul Holmes was released on parole after serving his sentence in Georgia for armed robbery and aggravated assault. In response to his request for relocation, he was permitted to serve his probation in Florida. Upon his release from prison, he was issued a parole certificate, which contained the conditions of his parole and a directive on how to contact the Georgia Interstate Compact Unit if he lost contact with his assigned parole officer.
In 1999, Florida authorities informed the Board of several parole violations which Holmes allegedly committed. At a probable cause hearing, Holmes pleaded guilty to a single charge of violating his parole.1 Several months later, Georgia authorities inquired into the status of pending criminal charges against Holmes, and were informed that the charges were nolle prosequi. Georgia sent another letter to Florida requesting that Florida continue its parole supervision of Holmes. Florida did not respond expeditiously to this request, and subsequently released Holmes from his parole.
The Florida authorities eventually informed the Board that it had closed interest in Holmes's case and further indicated that the case could not be re-opened without more information on Holmes's location. When the Board received this information, a member of the Georgia Interstate Compact Service contacted the Miami-Dade County Metro Police and attempted to locate Holmes at his last known address, which was his sister's residence. A man living at Holmes's sister's residence indicated that Holmes no longer lived there. The following day, the Board issued an arrest warrant and Order of Temporary Revocation of Parole for Holmes based upon the Georgia Interstate Compact Service's research and belief that Holmes had absconded from parole supervision.
Holmes was arrested on Georgia's parole warrant on December 28, 2000, and subsequently returned to Georgia. Holmes was denied a preliminary hearing because of his "parole absconder" status. A final parole revocation hearing was not held until March 21, 2001. At the hearing, Holmes testified that he had written to the Board for instructions after being told that he was no longer on parole in Florida, but received no answer, and was never told that his parole supervision had been transferred to Georgia. The Chief Parole Officer in Georgia, Bob Crosby, testified that nothing had gone wrong in Holmes's case, and that Florida had closed interest in the case because authorities could not locate Holmes. Based on the testimony provided at the hearing, the Board revoked Holmes's parole.
Holmes applied for a writ of habeas corpus. The state court reversed the findings the Board made at the initial hearing and ordered the Board to provide Holmes with another final parole revocation hearing. At the second hearing on October 3, 2001, Holmes contended that although he knew he was supposed to report, he did not know to whom. The hearing officer agreed that "there seem[ed] to be a serious breach in communication between Florida and Georgia in reference to [Holmes]." Thus, the Board reparoled Holmes.2
On June 23, 2003, Holmes filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Bob Crosby and the following members of the Board: (1) Garfield Hammonds, Jr.; (2) Eugene Walker; (3) Betty Ann Cook; (4) Bobby Whitworth; and (5) Walter S. Ray all in their individual capacities. Holmes asserted claims for false imprisonment and violation of his due process rights. He requested both monetary and declaratory relief.3
The Board moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no constitutional right to parole and that Crosby and the Board members were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the Board's motion for summary judgment.4 The Board now appeals.
We review a district court's denial of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Stonewall Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 111 F.3d 852, 858 (11th Cir.1997).
To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must prove (1) a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 2254-55, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988).
On appeal, the Board members contend that they are not only entitled to qualified immunity, but that they are also entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity.5 We repeatedly have held that individual members of the Parole Board are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity from a suit for damages. Fuller v. Georgia State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 851 F.2d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir.1988); see also Clark v. State of Ga. Pardons & Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 641 n. 2 (11th Cir.1990); Sultenfuss v. Snow, 894 F.2d 1277, 1278-79 (11th Cir.1990), vacated and affirmed on other grounds after rehearing en banc, 35 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir.1994). Thus, we hold that the district court erred in permitting the claims for monetary damages to proceed against the individual Board members.
We have not yet determined, however, whether a parole officer is also entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. We held...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keaton v. Cobb County
...constitutional right, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under color of state law."30 Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256,1258 (11th Cir.2005). a. Constitutional Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot hold the individual Defendants liable under § 1983 because sh......
-
Riggins v. Stewart
...a person acting under the color of state law." Martinez v. Burns, 459 F. App'x 849, 850-51 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256, 1258 (11th Cir. 2005)). The parties do not dispute that Defendants, employed as correctional officers for the State of Alabama, were acting un......
-
Henry v. Jefferson County Personnel Bd., 2:05-CV-1788-RDP.
...acts are in error, malicious, or were in excess of his or her jurisdiction," Bolin, 225 F.3d at 1239; see also Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256, 1258 (11th Cir.2005) (finding that members of parole board and individual parole officers were entitled to absolute judicial immunity from false im......
-
Conrad v. Dunn
...a person acting under the color of state law." Martinez v. Burns, 459 F. App'x 849, 850-851 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256, 1258 (11th Cir. 2005)). There is no dispute that the named defendants, as employees of the Alabama Department of Corrections and its contract......
-
The Officer Has No Robes: a Formalist Solution to the Expansion of Quasi-judicial Immunity
...to the preparation of a presentence report).240. Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F.2d 1489, 1490 (11th Cir. 1984); see also Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256, 1258 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Chesser favorably).241. Turner v. Barry, 856 F.2d 1539, 1541 (D.C. Cir. 1988).242. Draine v. Leavy, 504 F. App'x ......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...attorneys enjoy “absolute immunity for their acts of preparing and filing the motion for a protective order”); Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256, 1258 (11th Cir. 2005) (parole officer and board members absolutely immune for testimony and decision to revoke parole). But see, e.g., Crooker v.......