Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01565/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01565-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1565

___________

Cliff Ambrose, Jr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

John Schultz; Dave Hunter; Daniel J. *

Nichols; Mary Lou Jergensen; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Barb Boldt, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 2, 2007

Filed: February 7, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Cliff Ambrose appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action against South Dakota parole board members, parole agents, and a prison

counselor, alleging constitutional violations resulting from the revocation of a

suspended sentence. Upon de novo review of the district court’s dismissal of the

complaint, see Carter v. Arkansas, 392 F.3d 965, 968 (8th Cir. 2004) (de novo review

Appellate Case: 06-1565 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2007 Entry ID: 3276245
-2-

standard), we hold that each defendant is entitled to absolute immunity, and

accordingly, we affirm. See Figg v. Russell, 433 F.3d 593, 597-98 & n.1 (8th Cir.

2006) (where plaintiff brought § 1983 claim against South Dakota parole board

members, parole agent, and prison staffers, alleging her constitutional rights were

violated as result of her incarceration upon parole board’s revocation of her suspended

sentence, affirming district court’s dismissal with prejudice on ground that each

defendant was entitled to absolute immunity).

Although Ambrose’s claim challenging the revocation of his suspended

sentence was not based on a decision regarding parole per se, absolute immunity still

attached to the parole board members’ relevant decisions because they were acting

within their powers and in their official capacities. See id. at 598 & n.2 (if notice is

given, parole board may subject release on suspended sentence to reasonable

conditions in addition to those imposed by sentencing court; parole board acted within

its power when it imposed parole conditions on suspended-sentence release and when

it revoked suspended sentence for violation; parole board members were entitled to

absolute immunity even if constitutional violation occurred, so long as board acted

within its powers, which included making decisions related to suspended sentences).

The parole agents sued by Ambrose are likewise entitled to absolute immunity. See

id. at 599-600 (where plaintiff apparently sued parole agent for participating in alleged

due process violation, and agent’s only function was to offer plaintiff agreement

containing terms and conditions of release on suspended sentence, claim against agent

was essentially same as claim against parole board members, and agent’s function was

“so associated with the function of the Parole Board that he, too, [was] cloaked in

absolute immunity”). Finally, even if Ambrose asserted a cognizable claim against

the prison counselor, she too is entitled to absolute immunity. See id. at 598-99

(prison employee held entitled to absolute immunity for plaintiff’s § 1983 claim based

on fact of confinement and conditions related thereto).

Appellate Case: 06-1565 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2007 Entry ID: 3276245
-3-

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Ambrose’s

pending motions on appeal.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1565 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/07/2007 Entry ID: 3276245