Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02080/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02080-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 23, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL O’NEILL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GARY KING, New Mexico Attorney

General; NEW MEXICO

CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT;

NEW MEXICO PAROLE BOARD;

RALPH TRUJILLO, Assistant

Attorney General,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-2080

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-01030-RB-WPL)

(D.N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, McKAY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.**

Plaintiff-Appellant Daniel O’Neill, a state inmate appearing pro se, appeals

from the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights action for failure to state

a claim. O’Neill v. King, No. 1:15-CV-01030-RB-WPL (D.N.M. Apr. 22, 2016),

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellate Case: 16-2080 Document: 01019676318 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 1 
ECF No. 8. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mr. O’Neill filed the underlying action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against a former New Mexico attorney general, an assistant attorney general, the

state corrections department, and the state parole board, alleging that his parole

date for one of several state court convictions was miscalculated. The district

court dismissed the civil rights complaint sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), finding it frivolous and malicious, and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),

concluding that no legal relief was available to Mr. O’Neill. The district court

also imposed a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which counted immediately

notwithstanding this appeal. Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015). 

We review the district court’s dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint for

frivolousness for an abuse of discretion. Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1259

(10th Cir. 2006). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court

did not abuse its discretion in finding that Mr. O’Neill’s allegations are directly

contradicted by the state record and thus “lack[] an arguable basis either in law or

in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Because the district

court also dismissed the underlying complaint for failure to state a claim, we

review those legal conclusions de novo. See Peterson v. Grisham, 594 F.3d 723,

727 (10th Cir. 2010). We find those conclusions are also sound. Mr. O’Neill

names agencies and officials who are not appropriate defendants in a § 1983

action. The Corrections Department and New Mexico Parole Board are entities of

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 16-2080 Document: 01019676318 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 2 
the state, not persons, and may not be sued under § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of

State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63–64 (1989). Parole board members are immune from

actions taken in their official capacity. Gillette v. N.M. Parole Bd., 42 F. App’x

210, 211 (10th Cir. 2002) (citing Knoll v. Webster, 838 F.2d 450, 451 (10th Cir.

1988)). And the attorney general and assistant attorney general have

prosecutorial immunity. Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 343 (2009). 

Furthermore, a judgment in favor of Mr. O’Neill would imply the invalidity of his

sentence. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).

AFFIRMED. All pending motions are denied and Mr. O’Neill is reminded

that he remains obligated to pay the full appellate filing fee. Our disposition

counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 16-2080 Document: 01019676318 Date Filed: 08/23/2016 Page: 3