IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

JAMES PETTY, AIS# 124252 ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case #2:06-CV-639-WKW 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

RAY B. FINEDOER, et al., ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

SPECIAL REPORT 

Comes now the Defendant, Ray Finedore, by counsel, 

denying Plaintiff’s 1983 claims, and shows unto the 

Court the following: 

Our Understanding of the Complaint 

 Plaintiff was paroled on 6-21-2005 to a verified 

home plan – South Alabama Community Center, 111 

Washington Street, Troy, Alabama. While there he was 

required to may monetary payments to the Center. Upon 

leaving the Center’s 6-month program he moved to 308 

1

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 14 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 1 of 8
Mulberry Street, Troy, Alabama, where he again was 

required to make monetary payments as a condition of 

the living arrangements. Plaintiff alleges that the 

Mulberry Street residence was closed sometime in midFebruary 2006. 

 Plaintiff alleges that the monetary requirements 

at the Center and Mulberry Street residences were 

extorted from him by Defendant Edward Hardy and seeks 

equitable relief. He claims Hardy failed to disclose 

the financial arrangements for participation in the 

program. 

 A Report of Parole Violation was prepared on 3-14-

2006 charging Plaintiff with Failure to Report and 

Failing to Pay Supervision Fees. Following Parole 

Court, Plaintiff’s parole was revoked on 5-1-2006. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Ray Finedore 

violated his constitutionally protected right to “equal 

protection” and “due process” in the revocation of his 

parole. 

Plaintiff seeks a new parole court hearing and 

reinstatement to parole. 

2

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 14 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 2 of 8
Exhibits 

 Exhibit A – Ray Finedore affidavit dated 9-8-06 

Defendant Ray Finedore’s Arguments 

 The Defendant, Ray Finedore, denies the 

Plaintiff’s allegations and submits an affidavit in 

support thereof. (Exhibit-A). 

Extortion 

 The Complaint fails to state a claim for extortion 

against Finedore under State or Federal law. The 

Complaint fails to allege that Finedore ask for or 

received any thing of value from the Plaintiff, except 

for statutorily required money – parole supervision 

fees and court ordered money.1 The Complaint fails to 

cite any conduct by Finedore concerning his involvement 

in the extortion claim. 

Immunity 

Finedore is entitled to immunity from monetary 

damages. The Supreme Court held that a State official 

was immune, as the effect of suing him for equitable 

 

1

 Ala. Code 15-22-2(a): Any person who is placed on parole by the Board of Pardons and Paroles ..., and 

who has income shall be required to contribute thirty dollars ($30) per month toward the cost of his or her 

supervision and rehabilitation beginning 30 days from the date he or she has an income. 

3

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 14 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 3 of 8
relief was to obtain relief from the State. “Obviously, 

State officials literally are persons. But a suit 

against a State official in his or her official 

capacity is not a suit against the official but rather 

is a suit against the official's office. Brandon v. 

Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 471, 105 S.Ct. 873, 877, 83 L.Ed.2d 

878 (1985). As such, it is no different from a suit 

against the State itself. See, e.g., Kentucky v. 

Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-166, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3104-

3105, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985); Monell, supra, at 690, n. 

55, 98 S.Ct., at 2035, n. 55. We see no reason to 

adopt a different rule in the present context, 

particularly when such a rule would allow petitioner to 

circumvent congressional intent by a mere pleading 

device.” Will v Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 

U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2312. Neither the State of 

Alabama nor its officials may be sued under §1983 as a 

means of obtaining either monetary or other relief from 

the State. 

Equal Protection 

The Complaint fails to state a claim against Finedore 

concerning his constitutional right to “equal 

4

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 14 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 4 of 8
protection”. To establish equal protection claim, 

prisoner must demonstrate that (1) he is similarly 

situated with other prisoners who received more 

favorable treatment; and (2) his discriminatory 

treatment was based on some constitutionally protected 

interest such as race (Jones v. Ray 279 F.3d 944 (11

Cir. 2001). Plaintiff makes only an allegation that 

Finedore violated his equal protection rights by 

bringing parole violation charges against him during 

stressful times. Plaintiff failed to state an equal 

protection claim. 

th

Due Process 

Plaintiff alleges Finedore violated his right to 

procedural due process in the parole revocation 

process. Finedore denies these allegations. 

 Habeas corpus exclusive remedy: 

A §1983 actions is improper method to challenge 

parole revocation. Habeas corpus is exclusive remedy 

for state prisoner challenging fact or duration of his 

confinement and seeking immediate or speedy release, 

Heck v Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (1994); 

28 U.S.C.A. §2254. 

5

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 14 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 5 of 8
 

Failed to exhaust State remedies: 

 Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his State remedy 

concerning the revocation of his parole. Challenges 

concerning parole revocation are brought by writ of 

certiorari in Montgomery County Circuit Court, Sellers 

v State, 586 So.2d 994 (Ala.Crim.Ct.App. 1991). 

Conclusion 

 Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted. Plaintiff failed to establish a 

equal protection claim. 

 Plaintiff’s claims against Finedore concerning due 

process are outside the scope of §1983 actions and 

should have been brought in a habeas corpus action. 

 Plaintiff failed to exhaust State remedy 

concerning challenges to his parole revocation. 

The Defendant, Ray Finedore, is entitled to judgment 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. (Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.Proc.). 

In the alternative Defendant, Ray Finedore, is 

entitled to be dismissed from this suit as a matter of 

law. (Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.Proc.). 

6

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 14 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 6 of 8
Respectfully submitted, 

TROY KING 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

 

GREGORY O. GRIFFIN, SR. 

 CHIEF COUNSEL 

 

 

s/STEVEN M. SIRMON 

 ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 

 State Bar#: ASB-5949-S61S 

 Ala. Bd. Pardons and Paroles 

 P.O. Box 302405 

 Montgomery, Alabama 36130 

 Telephone: (334) 242-8700 

 Fax: (334) 353-4423 

 Steve.Sirmon@alabpp.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on 9-12-2006 I 

electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 

the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send 

notification of such filing to the following: (None), 

and I hereby certify that on 9-12-2006 I mailed ,by 

United States Postal Service, the document to the 

following non-CM/ECF participants: 

JAMES PETTY 

AIS #139044 

EASTERLING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 

200 WALLACE DR. 

7

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 14 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 7 of 8
CLIO, ALABAMA 36017-2615 

Done this 12th day of September 2006.

 Respectfully submitted, 

 s/ STEVEN M. SIRMON 

 ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 

 State Bar#: ASB-5949-S61S 

 Ala. Bd. Pardons and Paroles 

 301 South Ripley Street 

 P.O. Box 302405 

 Montgomery, Alabama 36130 

 Telephone: (334) 242-8700 

 Fax: (334) 353-4423 

 steve.sirmon@alabpp.gov

8

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 14 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 8 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

JAMES PETTY, AIS# 124252, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case #2:06-CV-639-WKW 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

RAY B. FINEDORE, et al., ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

ANSWER 

Comes now the Defendant, Ray Finedore, by counsel, 

denying Plaintiff’s 1983 claims, and shows unto the 

Court the following: 

1. The Complaint fails to state a claim against 

Finedore for Extortion. The Complaint cites no 

conduct on the part of Finedore that meets the 

elements of extortion as defined under State or 

Federal law. Finedore denies the allegation. 

2. Plaintiff’s claims against Finedore challenge his 

“due process” rights established under Morrissey v 

1

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 14-2 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 1 of 4
Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), in which he seeks to 

overturn his parole revocation and incarceration. 

Habeas corpus is exclusive remedy for state 

prisoner challenging fact or duration of his 

confinement and immediate or speedy release.

3. Plaintiff has failed to exhaust State remedies in 

challenging his “due process” rights in the parole 

revocation process. A writ of certiorari in 

Montgomery County Circuit Court is the state 

remedy for such a challenge. 

4. The Complaint alleges Finedore violated 

Plaintiff’s Constitutional right to “equal 

protection”, but fails to cite any conduct wherein 

Finedore treated Plaintiff differently that other 

parolees similarly situated. Nor does Plaintiff 

show he is a member of a protected class entitled 

to such protection. Finedore denies the 

allegation. 

5. Finedore is entitled to immunity from monetary 

damages. The Supreme Court held that a State 

official was immune, as the effect of suing him 

for equitable relief was to obtain relief from the 

2

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 14-2 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 2 of 4
State. “Obviously, State officials literally are 

persons, but a suit against a State official in 

his or her official capacity is not a suit against 

the official but rather is a suit against the 

official's office. 

Wherefore, premises considered the Defendant, Ray 

Finedore, moves the Court to dismiss him from this 

action. 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

TROY KING 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

 GREGORY O. GRIFFIN, SR. 

 CHIEF COUNSEL 

 

 s/STEVEN M. SIRMON 

 ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 

 State Bar#: ASB-5949-S61S 

 Ala. Bd. Pardons and Paroles 

 P.O. Box 302405 

 Montgomery, Alabama 36130 

 Telephone: (334) 242-8700 

 Fax: (334) 353-4423 

 Steve.Sirmon@alabpp.gov

 

3

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 14-2 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 3 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on 9-12-2006 I 

electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 

the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send 

notification of such filing to the following: (None), 

and I hereby certify that on 9-12-06 I mailed ,by 

United States Postal Service, the document to the 

following non-CM/ECF participants: 

JAMES PETTY 

AIS #139044 

EASTERLING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 

200 WALLACE DR. 

CLIO, ALABAMA 36017-2615 

Done this 12th day of September 2006.

 Respectfully submitted, 

 s/ STEVEN M. SIRMON 

 ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 

 State Bar#: ASB-5949-S61S 

 Ala. Bd. Pardons and Paroles 

 301 South Ripley Street 

 P.O. Box 302405 

 Montgomery, Alabama 36130 

 Telephone: (334) 242-8700 

 Fax: (334) 353-4423 

 steve.sirmon@alabpp.gov

4

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 14-2 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 4 of 4
STATE OF ALABAMA 1 

) 

MONTGOMERY COUNTY ) 

AFFIDAVIT 

BEFORE ME, the u.n.dersigled. a.tit.lthority for said Co~111ty and. State, pc:rsondl.y 

appeared Ray Fined.ore, who is ltnown, to me, and. after being du.ly sworn, dcposed aiid 

sa.id as follows: 

My name is Ray Finedore and I an currently employed, with the Alabama Board 

o:f Pardons and Paroles as a Probation a.nd Parolc Officer 111 an.d assign.ed to the Troy, 

A1abam.a office. As a probation and, paro1.e o:Eficer 1 supervise probationers ;for thc Cou.rts 

and parol.ees for tlne Parolc Boa.rd. 1 also prepare reporcs of investigati.on. for the COLII~S 

a17d tl1c Paxo1.e Board. 

"Ja.m.es Petty was paroled to the Troy offi.ce and a.ssj.gned to my caseload, M:r. 

Perty had submitted a home plan .for approval,, indicating lze would I.ivc at the South 

Alabama C'on~rn~~i~il;y Center, 1 11 Washington Strreer, Troy, Alabama. I vcrified this plan 

and it appeared to be satisfactory. I was not iilvolved in establishing thhe h0m.e plan, just 

verify-in,g it would be a satisfactory plan.. Mr. Petty wa.s paroled and rcsided at 1:ll.e Sou.th 

Alabama Commun.i.ty Center until 11e conlplctcd the 6-month program the Center 

provides. Wllcn Mr. Petty reporteCl in December 2005 he was drug tested ~:esulting i.n a 

positive reading for m.arjjuana and cocaine. I coui~scled Inim conceining hi.s drug use and 

told l~irn IIC would be drug tested .more :fr'requcntly as a result and any fudh.er positive 

screens would result in his arrest. He also indicated he had moved. to 308 Mulberry 

Street, Troy, Alabama.. Mr. Petty reported. for the month of Ja11,uary 2006 and fa.iled to 

report tllerealker. 

"On 3-14-2006 T prepwed a Report of Parole Violat,ioii clrarging Mr. Petty wit11 

failii7.g to report ad failing to pay supel-vision. .fees. He was affordcd a po.ro1.e court 

heating, where he pled guilty to both charges. Tl~c Parole Board revoked his pal-ole on 5- 

"Dutii~p 111c period when 1 supervised Mr Petty 1 was not involved in securing his 

living arrangements, nor did I havc any persoi~al or inoi~ctary interest in wl~cre hc lived. 

EXHIBIT 

1 I-I 

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 14-3 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 1 of 2
IC 

Mr. Petty i WL. ffre t.o livc wherever he wished, provided it was a satisfactory home plan. 

i My only Intercsc was .to assure he initi,ally had a. satisfactory home plan and, that lle kept I 

me infnr~$ed of his living armngemcnts, which is a condition of his parole. 

-, 

RAY FTNEDORE 

Alabama Probation and Parole Officer 

"TI deny being involved in what Mr. Petty calls extorting money from him. 1 

further d;ny having anything to do with choosing Mr. Petty's living arrangements. other 

than assding it WEIS saljsfactory for a smooth transition back into the community afler 

being redasccl from prison I 

"I1 deny violatioil Mr. Pctty's due process or equal protection riglits. 1-Te quit 

SWORN TO AND SIJRSCRlBED before me this - ?day of 

2006. 

reporting 

NOTARY PU~ 

Corn mission Expires: 6 -24-J 9 

suld paying his supcrvisiori fees aftcr a cou11.jeling session concerning liis 

positive dbug test lor cocaine and marijuana. I filed a Report of Parolc Violation charging 

him with( failing to report and failing to pay his supervision fees. Parole Court was 

conducte 4 and he pled guilty to both charges. The Parolc Board revoked his parole as a 

result. I heny treating Mr. Petty differently ihan any othcr paroles, under similar 

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 14-3 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 2 of 2