Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03820/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03820-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3820

___________

Gregory L. Sams; Edward S. Walsh; *

Tony Williams, *

*

Appellants, *

*

Steven Davis, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Lawrence Crawford, Director, MDOC; * Western District of Missouri.

Denis Agniel, Chairman, MO Board of *

Probation & Parole; Paul Caspari, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Community Corrections Director; *

Jane/John Does, All Unknown *

Parole Officers; Melissa Thies; Ronald *

Zils; Christopher Thomson; Alice *

O’Conner; Elisabeth Simpson; Gail *

Bynum; Wade R. Beers; Sharon *

Housell; Christina Gildersleeve; Scott *

Hadaller; Chad Obersteadt; Robert *

Robinson; Steve Bell; Anne Steward; *

Sandra Domalewski; Lelonda Sherrod; *

Beth Johnson, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 4, 2006

Filed: August 7, 2006 

___________

Appellate Case: 05-3820 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2006 Entry ID: 2075317
-2-

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the district court’s preservice dismissal of a 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action filed by three Missouri prisoners. We reverse. 

Initially, we find that all three prisoners--Gregory Sams, Edward Walsh, and

Tony Williams--are proper appellants, despite Walsh’s and Williams’s failure to sign

the notice of appeal. Given that the notice of appeal’s caption and body read

“Gregory Sams, et al[.],” and that all three prisoners separately moved to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal, we conclude that Walsh’s and Williams’s intent to appeal

was objectively clear. See Sather v. Comm’r, 251 F.3d 1168, 1172 (8th Cir. 2001).

Thus, we direct the clerk to add Walsh and Williams as appellants on this court’s

docket.

As for the facts, after their parole was revoked, plaintiffs filed this section 1983

action claiming defendants violated their due process rights by failing to inform them

of their constitutional rights prior to parole-revocation hearings. Specifically,

plaintiffs alleged the following. First, parole officers merely gave them a booklet

titled “Rights of Offender to Preliminary and Revocation Hearing,” which provided

incomplete information about the extent of their rights, and induced them to waive

their rights to preliminary hearings. Second, Missouri’s parole-revocation-hearing

system did not comport with the minimum due process requirements set forth in

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972). Last, Missouri used unsigned paroleviolation field reports prior to revocation hearings to determine probable cause for

revocation, and alleged parole violators were not given copies of these reports until

they had waived their preliminary hearings, preventing parolees from refuting any

information in the reports. Plaintiffs requested damages, new parole-revocation

hearings, appointment of counsel, full compliance with Morrissey, and other

declaratory relief. The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under

Appellate Case: 05-3820 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2006 Entry ID: 2075317
-3-

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), finding plaintiffs’ claims were barred by Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646

(1997).

Upon de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000)

(per curiam), we conclude the district court incorrectly dismissed plaintiffs’ action.

Plaintiffs were not challenging the fact of their parole revocations, as their complaint

alleged instead that the procedures used in their parole-revocation proceedings were

unconstitutional. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 553-55 (1974) (state

prisoners challenging revocation of good-time credits by means of constitutionally

deficient disciplinary proceedings could use § 1983 to obtain declaration that

disciplinary procedures were invalid and to enjoin prospective enforcement of invalid

prison regulations, as neither declaratory-relief nor injunctive-relief victory would

have meant immediate release or shorter period of incarceration). Because success on

their due process claims would not necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of their

current confinement or its duration, plaintiffs can challenge Missouri’s parole

revocation procedures in this section 1983 action. Cf. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S.

74, 81-82 (2005) (“state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)

– 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”). Notably, no plaintiff seeks an injunction ordering his immediate or

speedier release, only a new parole revocation hearing at which Missouri parole

officials could exercise their discretion. See id. at 82 (finding plaintiffs’ claims

cognizable under § 1983 because they sought relief that would render invalid state

procedures used to deny parole eligibility and parole suitability, and did not seek

injunction ordering immediate or speedier release; plaintiffs’ success at most meant

new eligibility review, which at most would speed consideration of new parole

application, or new parole hearing at which state parole authorities may, in their

discretion, decline to shorten prison term); Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 483-84 (parole

revocations are in some part discretionary). 

Appellate Case: 05-3820 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/07/2006 Entry ID: 2075317
-4-

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3820 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/07/2006 Entry ID: 2075317