Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02000/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02000-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Ralph Martinez
Appellant
New Mexico Parole Board
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES 

FILLD s 

U 'ted States Co~rt qf Appeal 

ru Tenth C1rcu1t 

COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR2 3 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

RICHARD MARTINEZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

NEW MEXICO PAROLE BOARD; 

DARELD L. KERBY, Warden, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 93-2000 

(D . C. No. CIV-90-73-JC) 

(Dist. NM) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal . See Fed. R. App. P. 

34 ( e) ; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant, Richard Ralph Martinez, has become a prolific pro 

s e litigant in pursuit of his claimed right to parole 

consideration from a sentence of life in prison imposed by a New 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36 . 3. 

Appellate Case: 93-2000 Document: 010110212853 Date Filed: 04/23/1993 Page: 1 
Mexico court. He has filed suit in state court claiming 

eligibility for mandatory parole consideration, a federal habeas 

corpus to enforce an order issued in the state litigation, and 

this§ 1983 case claiming certain constitutional deprivations 

arising out of the actions of the prison warden and the state 

board of parole. Before us is the judgment of the district court 

dismissing the§ 1983 complaint. We affirm. 

This case has its genesis in a habeas proceeding Mr. Martinez 

filed in state court contending he had a right to parole 

consideration even though he had not served the ten years mandated 

by N.M. Stat. Ann. § 1-21 - l0(d) (4 ) . That statute provides persons 

serving a life sentence "shall be eligible to appear before the 

parole board after they have served ten years." It was Mr. 

Martinez' contention that he was entitled to accumulated good time 

credits which ultimately resulted in his right to immediate 

release . Upon Mr. Martinez' motion, the state court entered an 

order granting judgment on the pleadings and judgment by default. 

Shortly thereafter, that order was vacated by a superseding order, 

and the case was dismissed. The state court held: 

As a matter of law, petitioner is not entitled to 

the relief sought by his petition - discharge. He is 

entitled to a parole hearing after serving (10) [sic] 

[years of the life sentence imposed on September 21, 

1980 . 

The complaint in the instant case alleged the parole board 

refused to grant parol e to Mr. Martinez following entry of the 

state court default judgment granting his release. Admitting the 

order has been rescinded, Mr. Martinez claimed the defendants were 

2 

Appellate Case: 93-2000 Document: 010110212853 Date Filed: 04/23/1993 Page: 2 
still required to obey it when it was entered and their failure to 

do so entitled him to damages. 

The complaint also alleged "violation of due process in 

standards to determine parole eligibility," and "racial and 

selective discrimination." No facts were set forth in the 

complaint supporting the claim of discrimination, and only 

argumentative assertions were made disputing the findings of the 

parole board which supported its denial of parole. 

After considerable skirmishing by the parties, the district 

court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against 

the warden. Although Mr. Martinez filed an amended complaint 

against the warden, that too was dismissed for failure to state a 

claim. No issues relative to that dismissal are raised in this 

court. 

The district court also dismissed the action against the 

parole board. 1 Relying upon Knoll v. Webster, 838 F.2d 450 (10th 

Cir. 1988), the court held the board was absolutely immune from 

suit because the only acts of the board upon which Mr. Martinez' 

sued were acts performed in execution of its official duties. 

Mr. Martinez asserts in this court that the district court 

erred in dismissing the case against the parole board because it 

"failed to find he is [H]ispanic" and thus the subject of 

discrimination. As we have already noted, the original complaint 

set forth no facts supporting any claim of discrimination. It 

1 The action was not filed against the individual members of 

the board, but against the board itself. 

3 

------------

Appellate Case: 93-2000 Document: 010110212853 Date Filed: 04/23/1993 Page: 3 
therefore appears this issue is raised for the first time on 

appeal, and we will not consider it. 

Notwithstanding that fact, the allegation still does not 

overcome the board's absolute immunity from a claim for damages. 

We agree with the district court that absolute immunity trumps all 

the plaintiff's assertions of misdeed and deprivations allegedly 

committed by the board. We have already held a member of a parole 

board 11 is absolutely immune from damages liability for actions 

taken in performance of the Board's official duties regarding the 

granting or denial of parole . " Knoll v. Webster, 838 F.2d at 451. 

See also Russ v. Uppah, 972 F.2d 300, 303 (10th Cir. 1992). The 

board is entitled to the same immunity that attaches to one of its 

members. Plaintiff's contention the board is not entitled to 

immunity is simply without merit. 

Mr. Martinez apparently argues immunity does not attach 

because the board did not comply with its statutory duty to give 

him written reasons for denying parole. Mere violations of state 

statutes, however, do not rise to the level of constitutional 

violations. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150 

(1970 ) ; Attencio v. Board of Education of Perasco Independent 

School Dist., 658 F.2d 774, 779 (10th Cir. 1981) . Even were that 

not so, it is clear that Mr. Martinez' contention is based only on 

semantics. 

Mr . Martinez set forth these facts in his complaint: 

On December 5, 1989, petitioner appeared before the 

parole board. On December 15, 1989, petitioner received 

his Application For Parole in which he was denied 

parole. The following reasons were listed as basis for 

denial: 

4 

Appellate Case: 93-2000 Document: 010110212853 Date Filed: 04/23/1993 Page: 4 
1 ) Time served in this institution insufficient to 

assess parole suitability; 

2 ) Your parole at this time would depreciate the 

seriousness of your crime; 

3 ) Parole is not in the best interest of society 

and/ or inmate at this time; and 

4 ) There is substantial risk that you will not 

conform to the conditions of parole. 

Having thus admitted that the board did indeed give him written 

reasons for denying his parole, Mr. Martinez persists in arguing 

to the contrary in this court . 

Mr. Martinez' arguments notwithstanding, the response he 

received from the board facially complies with its statutory duty. 

The board gave him the reasons for its action. The fact that he 

disagrees with the reasons and finds them wanting, or that they 

were set forth on a preprinted form, does not obviate the fact 

that he received them. For the purpose of determining the issue 

of immunity only, we are satisfied the board has complied with its 

statutory duty. 

Finally, although the issue has not been considered before, 

we think there is an even more fundamental reason for affirming 

the district court. To succeed in his action for damages, Mr. 

Martinez would have to prove a "person" acting under color of 

state law deprived him of a right guaranteed by the constitution 

or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The impediment 

t o his success in this case is that the parole board, as an 

entity, is n ot a "person." Thompson v. Burke, 556 F.2d 231, 232 

(3d Cir. 1977 ) . Becau se his action for damages is asserted only 

against the New Mexico Parole Board and no person, Mr. Martinez 

5 

Appellate Case: 93-2000 Document: 010110212853 Date Filed: 04/23/1993 Page: 5 
has failed to state a claim for which he would be entitled to 

relief. 

Mr. Martinez has apparently confused claims that might give 

rise to habeas relief with an action for damages. The facts that 

might support release from custody are not always sufficient to 

support a damage claim. It is because he attempted to obtain 

damages from an entity not subject to such a claim that this suit 

must fail . 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

6 

Appellate Case: 93-2000 Document: 010110212853 Date Filed: 04/23/1993 Page: 6