Henderson v. Gwathney (INMATE 1)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

KENDALL HENDERSON, )

AIS #218588, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-381-ALB

)

LEIGH GWATHNEY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on an amended complaint

filed by Kendall Henderson, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Elmore County Jail

upon the revocation of his parole by Leigh Gwathney and Clifford Walker, members of

Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles. In this complaint, Henderson challenges the

constitutionality of the revocation of his parole as violative of due process and state law,

including administrative regulations based on such law. Doc. 7 at 3. Henderson seeks

monetary damages from the defendants. Doc. 1 at 4. As Henderson does not state

otherwise and upon its liberal construction of the amended complaint, the court construes

the complaint to seek relief from the defendants in both their official and individual

capacities.

Upon thorough review of the amended complaint, the undersigned finds this case is

due to be dismissed prior to service of process in accordance with the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii).1

II. DISCUSSION

A. Immunity from Damages

1. Official Capacity Claims – Sovereign Immunity

To the extent Henderson requests monetary damages from the defendants in their

official capacities, they are entitled to sovereign immunity. Official capacity lawsuits

against state employees are “in all respects other than name, . . . treated as a suit against

the entity.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U. S. 159, 166 (1985). As the Eleventh Circuit has

held,

the Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from entertaining suits by

private parties against States and their agencies [or employees]. There are

two exceptions to this prohibition: where the state has waived its immunity

or where Congress has abrogated that immunity. A State’s consent to suit

[via waiver of immunity] must be unequivocally expressed in the text of [a]

relevant statute. Waiver may not be implied. Likewise, Congress’ intent to

abrogate the States’ immunity from suit must be obvious from a clear

legislative statement.

1This court granted Henderson leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. Doc. 3. Even though

Henderson submitted payment of an initial partial filing fee, the court remains obligated to screen the

complaint for possible summary dismissal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or

any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case” for the reasons set forth

herein.). Specifically, the screening procedure requires the court to “dismiss the case at any time if the

court determines that— . . . the action . . . is frivolous or malicious; . . . fails to state a claim on which relief

may be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii); see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1)-(2) (“On review [of a prisoner’s

complaint], the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the

complaint, if the complaint— . . . is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.”).

Selensky v. Alabama, 619 F. App’x 846, 848–49 (11th Cir. 2015) (internal quotations and

citations omitted). Thus, a state official may not be sued in his/her official capacity unless

the state has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Pennhurst State School &

Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984), or Congress has abrogated the State’s

immunity, see Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 59 (1996).

Neither waiver nor abrogation applies here. The Alabama Constitution states

that “the State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of

law or equity.” Ala. Const. Art. I, § 14. The Supreme Court has recognized

that this prohibits Alabama from waiving its immunity from suit.

Selensky, 619 F. App’x at 849 (citing Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (holding

consent to suit is prohibited by the Alabama Constitution). “Alabama has not waived its

Eleventh Amendment immunity in § 1983 cases, nor has Congress abated it.” Holmes v.

Hale, 701 F. App’x 751, 753 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing Carr v. City of Florence, Ala., 916

F.2d 1521, 1525 (11th Cir.1990)). In light of the foregoing, the defendants are entitled to

sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment for claims seeking monetary damages

from them in their official capacities. Selensky, 619 F. App’x at 849; Harbert Int’l, Inc. v.

James, 157 F.3d 1271, 1277 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that state officials sued in their

official capacities are protected under the Eleventh Amendment from suit for damages);

Edwards v. Wallace Community College, 49 F.3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir. 1995) (holding

that damages are unavailable from state official sued in his official capacity). The claims

for monetary damages against the defendants in their official capacities are therefore

subject to summary dismissal in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

2. Individual Capacity Claims – Quasi-Judicial Immunity

With respect to any request for monetary damages from the defendants in their

individual capacities arising from actions relative to the revocation of parole, Henderson

is likewise entitled to no relief. The Eleventh Circuit has long recognized that individual

parole officials “are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity from a suit for damages”

based upon decisions to grant, deny or revoke parole. Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256,

1258 (11th Cir. 2005); Fuller v. Georgia State Board of Pardons and Parole, 851 F.2d

1307 (11th Cir. 1988); Cruz v. Skelton, 502 F.2d 1101, 1101–02 (5th Cir. 1974). The

actions about which Henderson complains relate to the validity of a decision to revoke

parole. Under these circumstances, the actions of the defendants are inextricably

intertwined with their decision-making authority as members of the parole board and they

are therefore immune from damages. Holmes, 418 at 1258. Consequently, Henderson’s

claim for monetary damages against the defendants in their individual capacities is due to

be summarily dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).

B. The Challenge to Parole Revocation

Henderson complains the revocation of his parole by defendants Gwathney and

Walker constituted an improper termination of parole and resulted in his current illegal

incarceration. Doc. 7 at 2–3. Specifically, Henderson alleges his parole revocation hearing

deprived him of due process and violated state law because the hearing did not occur within

twenty (20) business days as directed by Ala. Code § 15-22-32(a) which, in turn, requires

his release back to parole.2 This allegation goes to the fundamental legality of Henderson’s

parole revocation and the resulting sentence on which he is now incarcerated. In

accordance with well-established law, Henderson is entitled to no relief on any claim

attacking the validity of the decision to revoke his parole. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S.

641 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475

(1973).

In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a complaint challenging the legality of a

prisoner’s conviction or sentence and seeking monetary damages for relief is not

cognizable in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action “unless and until the conviction or sentence is

reversed, expunged, invalidated, or impugned by the grant of a writ of habeas corpus” and

complaints containing such claims must therefore be dismissed. Heck, 512 U.S. at 489.

The relevant inquiry is “whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily

imply the invalidity of [the basis for his incarceration.]” Heck, 512 U. S. at 487; Balisok,

520 U.S. at 648 (holding that inmate’s claims for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief or

2This code section provides as follows:

Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that a prisoner who has been paroled has

violated his or her parole, the Board of Pardons and Paroles, at its next meeting, may

declare the prisoner to be delinquent, and time owed shall date from the delinquency. The

Department of Corrections, after receiving notice from the sheriff of the county jail where

the state prisoner is being held, shall promptly notify the board of the return of a paroled

prisoner charged with violation of his or her parole. Thereupon, the board, a single member

of the board, a parole revocation hearing officer, or a designated parole officer shall hold a

parole court at the prison or at another place as it may determine within 20 business days

and consider the case of the parole violator, who shall be given an opportunity to appear

personally or by counsel before the board or the parole court and produce witnesses and

explain the charges made against him or her. The board member, parole revocation hearing

officer, or a designated parole officer, acting as a parole court, shall determine whether

sufficient evidence supports the violation charges. If a hearing is not held within the

specified 20 business days, the parolee shall be released back to parole supervision.

monetary damages which “necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed,

[are] not cognizable under § 1983.”). The rule of Heck is therefore not limited to a request

for damages but is equally applicable to an action in which declaratory judgment or

injunctive relief is sought. “It is irrelevant that [the plaintiff] disclaims any intention of

challenging his conviction [or other judgment on which his incarceration is based]; if he

makes allegations that are inconsistent with the [decision] having been valid, Heck kicks

in and bars his civil suit.” Okoro v. Callaghan, 324 F.3d 488, 490 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing

Balisok, 520 U.S. at 646–48).

The law directs that “habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who

challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and [a ruling in his favor would result

in] immediate or speedier release, even though such a claim may come within the literal

terms of § 1983.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 481. The “sole remedy in federal court” for a state

prisoner challenging the constitutionality of his incarceration is a petition for writ of habeas

corpus. Balisok, 520 U.S. at 645; Okoro, 324 F.3d at 490 (noting Heck directs that a state

inmate “making a collateral attack on the [basis for his confinement] . . . may not do that

in a civil suit, other than a suit under the habeas corpus statute.”). An inmate “cannot seek

to accomplish by a section 1983 declaratory judgment what he must accomplish solely

through a writ of habeas corpus.” Jones v. Watkins, 945 F.Supp. 1143, 1151 (N.D. Ill.

1996). Under Heck, “[t]he [determinative] issue . . . is not the relief sought, but the ground

of the challenge.” Miller v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 75 F.3d 330, 331 (7th Cir. 1996);

Cook v. Baker, et al., 139 F. App’x 167, 169 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that the “exclusive

remedy” for a state inmate’s claim challenging the basis for or validity of his incarceration

“is to file a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254[.]”). The Supreme Court

emphasized “that a claim either is cognizable under § 1983 and should immediately go

forward, or is not cognizable and should be dismissed.” Balisok, 520 U.S. at 649. “Later,

in Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005), the Supreme

Court reviewed its prior holdings in this area and summarized that ‘a state prisoner’s

§ 1983 action is barred (absent previous invalidation [of his conviction or sentence])—no

matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s

suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)—if success in that

action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.’ Id. at

81–82, 125 S.Ct. at 1248.” Robinson v. Satz, 260 F. App’x 209, 212 (11th Cir. 2007)

(alterations in original); see Antonelli v. Foster, 104 F.3d 899, 901 (7th Cir.1997) (stating

that Heck applies to any suit “premised . . . on the invalidity of confinement pursuant to

some legal process[.]”). The principles espoused in Heck foreclosing review of claims

challenging the basis of confinement in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action therefore apply to

revocations of parole and have been so applied by the courts. See Green v. McGill-

Johnston, 685 F. App’x 811, 812 (11th Cir. 2017) (holding that Plaintiff’s “allegations, if

proven true, would have necessarily implied the invalidity of his parole revocation . . . and

his resulting imprisonment. . . . Because [Plaintiff’s] allegations would imply the invalidity

of his confinement, the Heck-bar applies and [Plaintiff’s] § 1983 claims must be

dismissed.”); White v. Gittens, 121 F.3d 803, 807 (7th Cir. 1997) (“A favorable decision in

the § 1983 proceeding would necessarily call into question the validity of the state’s decree

revoking [Plaintiff’s] parole and ordering him back to prison. Heck therefore applies, and

the § 1983 action is not cognizable in a federal court . . . unless the parole revocation ‘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, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.’”) ; Littles v. Board of Pardons and

Paroles Div., 68 F.3d 122, 123 (5th Cir.1995) (holding that the district court properly

dismissed Plaintiff’s § 1983 complaint challenging the revocation of his parole where the

challenged “decision has not been reversed, expunged, set aside, or called into question, as

Heck mandates.”); Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S.

851 (1995) (holding that “Heck applies to proceedings that call into question the fact or

duration of parole.”); Holt v. Gibbs, 2009 WL 111643, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 14, 2009)

(“Heck applies to parole and probation revocation proceedings.”) (citing Vannoy, supra).

It is clear that the revocation of parole which forms the basis for Henderson’s current

incarceration has not been reversed, expunged, impugned or invalidated in an appropriate

state or federal action. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, Heck and its progeny

bar Henderson’s use of any federal civil action, other than a petition for habeas corpus

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, to mount a collateral attack on the validity of the decision

to revoke his parole. Heck, 512 U.S. at 489 (“We do not engraft an exhaustion requirement

upon § 1983, but rather deny the existence of a cause of action. Even a prisoner who has

fully exhausted [all] available state remedies has no cause of action under § 1983 unless

and until the [basis for his incarceration] is reversed, expunged, invalidated, or impugned

by the grant of a [federal] writ of habeas corpus [or some appropriate state court action].”);

Abella v. Rubino, 63 F.3d 1063, 1066 n.4 (11th Cir. 1995) (“Heck clarifies that Preiser is

a rule of cognizability, not exhaustion.”). Hence, Henderson’s challenge to the

fundamental legality of his parole revocation and current imprisonment based on such

revocation is not cognizable in this civil action as it provides no basis for relief at this time

and this challenge is therefore due to be summarily dismissed in accordance with the

directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).3

C. Supplemental Jurisdiction

Insofar as Henderson seeks relief for a violation of state law, review of this pendent

state law claim is appropriate only upon exercise of this court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

In the posture of this case, however, the court concludes that exercise of supplemental

jurisdiction over Henderson’s state law claim is inappropriate.

Two factors determine whether state law claims lacking an independent

federal jurisdictional basis can be heard in federal court with a federal claim

over which the court has jurisdiction. To exercise pendent jurisdiction [or

what is now identified as supplemental jurisdiction] over state law claims not

otherwise cognizable in federal court, “the court must have jurisdiction over

a substantial federal claim and the federal and state claims must derive from

a ‘common nucleus of operative fact.’” Jackson v. Stinchcomb, 635 F.2d

462, 470 (5th Cir.1981) (quoting United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S.

715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966)). See generally C. Wright, A.

Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3567 pp.

443–47 (1975).

3Henderson is advised that any federal petition for writ of habeas corpus that he files is subject to the

procedural limitations imposed upon such petitions, in particular, the exhaustion of state court remedies.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) (“An application for a writ of habeas corpus [filed] on behalf of a [state

inmate] shall not be granted unless it appears that . . . the applicate has exhausted the remedies available in

the courts of the State[.]”).

L.A. Draper and Son v. Wheelabrator Frye, Inc., 735 F.2d 414, 427 (11th Cir. 1984). The

exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is completely discretionary. Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 725–

26; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (provides a district court discretion to “decline to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . [when] the district court has dismissed

all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]”). “If the federal claims are dismissed

prior to trial, Gibbs strongly encourages or even requires dismissal of the state claims.”

L.A. Draper and Son, 735 F.2d at 428.

In view of the resolution of the federal claims presented by Henderson, the court

concludes that the pendent state law claim regarding the alleged untimeliness of the parole

revocation hearing is due to be dismissed without prejudice. Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726 (if the

federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, the state claims should be dismissed as well);

see also Ray v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 677 F.2d 818 (11th Cir. 1982). The court

therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim and makes

no determination with respect to the merits of this claim.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. The plaintiff’s request for monetary damages against Leigh Gwathney and

Clifford Walker be DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the directive of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) as the defendants are entitled to sovereign and quasi-judicial

immunity from such damages.

2. The plaintiff’s claims challenging the fundamental legality of the revocation of

his parole by the defendants be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the provisions

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) as such claims currently provide no basis for relief in the

instant cause of action.

3. The plaintiff’s pendent state law claim be dismissed without prejudice to any

right the plaintiff may have to present this claim to the state courts as this court deems it

inappropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

4. This case be dismissed prior to service of process in accordance with the

directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii).

On or before July 28, 2020, the plaintiff may file objections to this

Recommendation. The plaintiff must specifically identify the factual findings and legal

conclusions in the Recommendation to which the objection is made. Frivolous, conclusive,

or general objections to the Recommendation will not be considered.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and legal

conclusions set forth in the Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge shall bar a party

from a de novo determination by the District Court of these factual findings and legal

conclusions and shall “waive the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order

based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except upon grounds of plain error

if necessary in the interests of justice. 11TH Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v.

Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993) (“When the magistrate

provides such notice and a party still fails to object to the findings of fact [and law] and

those findings are adopted by the district court the party may not challenge them on appeal

in the absence of plain error or manifest injustice.”); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794

(11th Cir. 1989).

DONE this 14th day of July, 2020.

/s/ Charles S. Coody

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE