### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-20151 Summary Calendar

WILLIAM DALE CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. STUART JENKINS, T ex a s S t a t e P a r o le D ivision D irector; MICHAEL LARSEN, Conroe Texas P arole Age n t ; PAULA HARDILEK, Conroe P arole Agent; C Y N T H I A TA K

A C S , Conroe Parole Agent; MS. BURKS, Supervisor o ver Conr o e Agents; KEITH WARREN, C o n r o e a n d H u ntsville Supervisor; IVY A NDERSON YORK, Regional D i r e ctor; TERRY MCKINNEY, Parole Division Preliminary H e a r i n g Officer; S YLVIA ANN MOKARZE L , T e x a s I n t e r s t a t e C o m p a c t P r o g r a m Supervisor; PATRICIA BIZAILLION CARTER, Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CV-3447

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * William D ale Carter, Illinois state prisoner # K97856, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against several employees of the Texas Board o f Pardons and Parole and his e x-wife, Patricia Bizaillion Carter. Although Carter’s conviction U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 5, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 13-20151 Document: 00512461596 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2013No. 13-20151

occurred in Illinois, his parole was transferred t o Texas via the Texas Interstate Compact Program. In h is c o m p l aint, Carter alleged that his parole was wrongfully revoked due to noncompliance with special conditions of parole imposed on sex offenders. He also asserted t hat, because he was never convicted of a sex offense, t he sex offender restrictions were illegal a n d i m posed in violation of his due p rocess r i g h ts. The d istrict court dismissed Carter’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A as frivolous, on the basis t h at Carter’s claims were barred b y H eck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). This court reviews the district cour t ’ s dismissal de novo. See Geiger v . Jowers , 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). “To p lead a constitutional claim for relief under § 1983, [a plaintiff must] allege a violation of a right s ecured

. . . by t he Constitution or l aws o f the United States and a v iolation of that right by one or more sta t e a c t o rs.” Johnson v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. , 38 F.3d 198, 200 (5th Cir. 1994). Because Carter’s exwife is not a state actor, she has no liability under § 1983. See Pol k County v. Do d s o n , 4 54 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). Thus, t h e district court did not err in dismissing Carter’s § 1983 complaint against Patricia Bizaillion Carter as frivolous. See § 1 915A(b)(1); Berry v. Brady , 192 F.3d 504, 507 ( 5th Cir. 1999). To the e xtent that Carter challenges the validity of his parole revocation, the district court’s decision determining that such a claim i s barred by H eck was not e rroneous. See Littles v. Board of Pardons and Paroles Div., 68 F.3d 122, 123 (5th Cir. 1995). Moreover, the T exas Board of Pardons and Parole i s cloaked with Eleventh Amendment immunity from liability for parole decisions. See id. However, accepting Carter’s assertions that he was d e nied a hearing prior to the imposition of the sex offender restrictions as conditions of his parole, then he has stated a nonfrivolous claim under § 1983 seeking injunctive relief. See Meza v. Livingston , 607 F .3d 392, 401, 412 (5th Cir. 20 1 0 )

. A ccordingly, t he judgment of t h e d i strict court is vacated and remanded for further proceedings. In light

o f t h is d ecision, Carter’s challenge to the dismissal o f h is complaint w i t h
2 Case: 13-20151 Document: 00512461596 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2013No. 13-20151

prejudice is denied a s moot. Carter also contends that t he district c ourt made

a false statement in t he first sentence of i ts memorandum and opinion when it stated that Carter w as a former inmate o f the Texas D epartment of Cr i m i n a l Justice. This argument is also moot b ecause the district court granted Carter’s motion to c o r r e c t t he s t a tement. Carter’s m otions for appointment o f counsel and to expedite the appeal are denied. See Cooper v . Sheriff, L ubbock County Tex

. , 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991); 5 T H C I R
. R U L E 34.5. AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART; MOTIONS DENIED.

3 Case: 13-20151 Document: 00512461596 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/05/2013