Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50295/USCOURTS-ca5-14-50295-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50295

Summary Calendar

JOEY SULA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; RISSI L. OWENS, 

Chairman of Parole Board, Individually and in her Official Capacity; JAMES 

P. KIEL, JR., Parole Commissioner, Individually and in his Official Capacity; 

JAMES HENSARLING, Parole Commissioner; FEDERICO RANGEL, Board 

Member, Individually and in his Official Capacity; CONRITH DAVIS, Board 

Member, Individually and in his Official Capacity,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CV-617

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joey Sula, Texas prisoner # 1550164, appeals the dismissal of his pro se, 

in forma pauperis, civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 27, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-50295 Document: 00512984547 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2015
No. 14-50295

Sula complained that the defendants unconstitutionally denied him release to 

mandatory supervision and that he was denied due process in connection with 

his mandatory-supervision hearings in 2012 and 2013. 

Because Sula’s complaint was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim for relief, we review its dismissal 

de novo. Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013). The district 

court’s dismissal of a claim seeking monetary damages against the defendants

in their official capacities, a claim Sula asserts he did not raise, will be 

disregarded. See FED. R. CIV. P. 61.

Sula did not plausibly establish that the supervisory defendants were 

personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation or acted with 

deliberate indifference. See Coleman, v. Sweetin, 745 F.3d 756, 763 (5th Cir. 

2014); Porter v. Epps, 659 F.3d 440, 446 (5th Cir. 2011). Further, to the extent 

Sula complained that the parole-officer defendants arbitrarily and capriciously 

denied his mandatory-supervision release, an adjudicative function, the 

parole-officer defendants enjoy absolute immunity. See Hulsey v. Owens, 

63 F.3d 354, 356-57 (5th Cir. 1995). 

The district court correctly dismissed Sula’s claims, “no matter the relief 

sought,” that challenged the denial of his release to mandatory supervision. 

See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005); see also McGrew v. Texas Bd. 

of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 160-61 (5th Cir. 1995) (applying Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), in a Texas prisoner’s suit under § 1983 

alleging illegal imprisonment based on the revocation of mandatory 

supervision). The district court correctly dismissed Sula’s claims based on 

alleged due process violations during his 2012 and 2013 mandatorysupervision hearings because Sula did not plausibly establish that he was 

denied the requisite due process and thereby prejudiced. See Greenholtz v. 

2

Case: 14-50295 Document: 00512984547 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2015
No. 14-50295

Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1979); 

Simpson v. Ortiz, 995 F.2d 606, 609 (5th Cir. 1993).

As the district court properly dismissed Sula’s federal claims, its decision 

to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims was 

not an abuse of discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Batiste v. Island Records 

Inc., 179 F.3d 217, 226 (5th Cir. 1999). 

The judgment of the district court dismissing Sula’s complaint is 

AFFIRMED. His motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. See Cooper 

v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cnty., Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991).

3

Case: 14-50295 Document: 00512984547 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/27/2015