419 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2005), 04-2894, Dawson v. Newman
|Citation:||419 F.3d 656|
|Party Name:||Lance DAWSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas NEWMAN, Jr., Madison County Superior Court Judge in his individual capacity, State of Indiana, Indiana Department of Corrections, Arthur Hegewald, Betty Weist, Victoria Fafata, and Kathy Stoops-Wright, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||August 18, 2005|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
ARGUED Jan. 21, 2005.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, No. 03 C 1563 Sarah Evans Barker, Judge.
Nicholas D. Conway (argued), Sutherlin & Associates, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
James B. Martin, Ryan D. Johanningsmeier (argued), Office of the Attorney General, Ronald J. Semler (argued), Stephenson, Daly, Morow & Kurnik, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before RIPPLE, WOOD, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
When Lance Dawson's probation was revoked, he appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals and won a ruling that the revocation was improper. On remand Madison County Superior Court Judge Thomas Newman, Jr., ordered Dawson released from prison. Judge Newman's office faxed a copy of the Indiana Court of Appeals' decision to the Indiana Department of Corrections ("DOC") but did not include a copy of the release order. Dawson thus remained in prison for another fourteen months, until he was released on parole supervision. He reported for supervision, informed parole officials that his original probation revocation had been overturned, but was unable to convince officials that he should not be on parole.
Dawson then brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Judge Newman, Madison County Clerk of Court Kathy Stoops-Wright, the DOC, and several parole officials. The State defendants (the judge, the DOC, and the parole officials) moved to dismiss on absolute immunity grounds; the clerk, Stoops-Wright, filed an answer and did not join the motion to dismiss. The district court granted the dismissal motion, concluding that the judge was immune and the DOC and its parole officials could not be held liable for Dawson's wrongful continued incarceration and parole supervision because they had no power to "recompute a sentence" and were not at fault for the failure to transmit the release order. The district court later issued a brief "clarification" order indicating that the dismissal was "complete" and was meant to include dismissal of Dawson's claims against the clerk, even though she had not moved to dismiss.
We affirm in part and reverse in part. Judge Newman is entitled to absolute judicial immunity, and the claims against him were properly dismissed. The claims against the parole officials should not have been dismissed, however. The dismissal motion raised only the issue of absolute immunity not the liability merits and the parole officials are not entitled to absolute immunity. Finally, the district court's follow-up order summarily dismissing the claims against the court clerk was improper, as she had not moved to dismiss.
We accept the facts alleged in Dawson's second amended complaint as true for purposes of our review of the district court's order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss. Baker v. Kingsley, 387 F.3d 649, 660 (7th Cir. 2004). In 1990 Dawson was convicted of certain criminal charges and placed on three years' probation with a suspended sentence of six years. In September 1992 Dawson's probation officer filed a notice of probation violation and a hearing was scheduled. The hearing was rescheduled several times due to the unavailability of the State's witnesses. On February 5, 1993, Dawson moved for a continuance. This motion was granted but the hearing was never rescheduled.
On June 12, 2000, approximately ten years after being placed on three years' probation and eight years after the alleged probation violation, the State filed an amended notice of probation violation. On October 23, 2000, Judge Newman revoked Dawson's probation and imposed the six-year term of incarceration. Dawson appealed. On July 18, 2001, the Indiana
Court of Appeals held that Dawson's probation revocation was improper as it occurred long after his term of probation had expired. See Dawson v....
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP