Pate v. Alabama Bd. of Pardons and Paroles

• Decision Date: 23 March 1976
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 76-31-N.
• Citation: 409 F. Supp. 478
• Parties: James L. PATE, Plaintiff, v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

409 F. Supp. 478

James L. PATE, Plaintiff, v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 76-31-N.

United States District Court, M. D. Alabama, N. D.

March 23, 1976.

Roger C. Williams, Williams, Williams & Williams, Tuscaloosa, Ala., for plaintiff.

Richard S. Manley, Demopolis, Ala., for Cooper.

Ray Acton, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., for Alabama Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, Lambert, Ussery, and Robinson.

No appearance for Hunter.

VARNER, District Judge.

ORDER

This cause is now submitted to the Court on motions to dismiss filed herein February 17 and 24, 1976, by Defendants, Board of Pardons and Paroles, Lambert, Ussery, Robinson and Cooper.

Plaintiff's minor daughter was allegedly raped and killed by Defendant, Horace Cleo Hunter, a parolee of the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, on April, 29, 1974, at or near Demopolis, Alabama. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant Board of Pardons and Paroles and Defendants Lambert, Ussery and Robinson, members of said Board, on the theory that the parole of Hunter was granted and his subsequent supervision accomplished either negligently or in a willfully and wantonly improper manner.

As to Defendant, Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, it is the opinion of this Court that the said Board is immune from suit by virtue of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the doctrine of official immunity.

Defendants Lambert, Robinson and Ussery are charged with misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance in the performance of their official duties. There has been a strong tendency in the courts to grant to parole and probation officials an immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C § 1983 similar to that granted to judges on the ground that such officials, when performing their official duties, are engaged in "quasi-judicial" activities. Burkes v. Callion, 433 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. den. 403 U.S. 908, 91 S.Ct. 2217, 29 L.Ed.2d 685 (1971); Silver v. Dickson, 403 F.2d 642 (9th Cir.1968), cert. den. 394 U.S. 990, 89 S.Ct. 1477, 22 L.Ed.2d 765 (1969).

The complaint herein alleges, not only negligence but also, reckless willfulness and wantonness. There is dictum in some lower court cases that an allegation of bad faith, coupled with a substantial showing thereof, might strip parole officials of their immunity for acts committed in the course of their duties. Joyce v. Gilligan, 383 F.Supp. 1028 (ND Ohio, 1974), affm'd. without opinion 510 F.2d 973 (6th Cir.1975). Upon consideration of the reasons supporting immunity, however, this Court concludes that parole officials should be protected by the same absolute immunity afforded judges for acts resulting from the performance of their official duties.

Parole officials bear a more than ordinary responsibility because of the dangerous traits already demonstrated by those with whom they must deal. This responsibility imposes far greater moral burdens and requires far more difficult legal choices than those met by the average administrative officer. The function of the Parole Board is more nearly akin to that of a judge in imposing sentence and granting or denying probation than it is to that of an executive administrator. It is essential to the proper administration of criminal justice that those who determine whether...