¥

Finally, plaintiff sues the chairman of the Prison Review
Board. Absolute immunity is accorded to government officials who
perform acts "functionally comparable" to judicial acts. Butz v.
Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 512 (19798); Wilson v. Kelkhoff, 86 F.3d
1438, 1443 (7th Cir. 1996). The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly
held that "parole board members are absolutely immune from suit
for their decision to grant, deny, or revoke parole." Walrath v.
United States, 35 F.3d 277, 282 (7th Cir. 1994); Walker v. Prison
Review Bd., 769 F.2d 396, 398 (7th Cir. 1985). In addition, the
Seventh Circuit has held that parole board members are entitled
to absolute immunity for their activities which are "inexorably
connected with the execution of parole revocation procedures and
are analogous to judicial action." Walrath, 35 F.3d at 281

(quoting Trotter v. Klincar, 748 F.2d 1177, 1182 (7th Cir.

1984)). "“{NJot only the actual decision to revoke parole, but
also the activities that are part and parcel of the decision
process" enjoy absolute immunity. Trotter, 748 F.2d at 1182; see
Wilson, 86 F.3d at 1444. The Seventh Circuit has held that the
parole board members' activities in conducting a preliminary
revocation hearing were entitled to absolute immunity. Trotter,
748 F.2d at 1180-83. Thus, the Prison Review Board member's
alleged decision made at plaintiff's preliminary revocation

hearing, also invokes absolute immunity. See Walrath, 35 F.3d at


Plaintiff claims these defendants failed to properly investigate
his claim that he did not violate the terms of his parole.
Plaintiff is now incarcerated, although he does not say whether
it is related to this parole issue.

In Senger v. Jordan, 1989 WL 36225 (N.D. Ill. April 10,
1989), the plaintiff similarly alleged that his parole was
revoked due to a negligent mistake on the part of the parole
officers and the Prison Review Board. The court held that
deprivation of a parolee's liberty through the negligent issuance
of a parole violation warrant is not actionable in light of
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986), and Davidson v. Cannon,
474 U.S. 344 (1986). Senger, 1989 WL 36225 at *1. Overruling
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981), these two cases held that
the deprivation of life, liberty, or property through the
negligent act of a state official does not violate the Due
Process Clause.

Similarly, the present complaint contains no allegations
from which the court reasonably could infer any deliberate
misconduct on the part of the parole officer or his supervisor.
Indeed, plaintiff himself claims that the mistake and negligence
of the parole officer's investigation, and the Prison Review
Board's failure to further investigate, caused his wrongful

incarceration.


¥

281. Therefore, plaintiff's damages claim against the Prison
Review Board chairman must fail.

Accordingly, this lawsuit will be dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

If IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis [3] is granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e) (2) (B), plaintiff's cause of action is dismissed. The
Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of
defendants Reginald Hardaway, Ed Ortega, and Ann Taylor and
against plaintiff Louis Malone denying plaintiff's cause of
action. The trust fund officer at plaintiff's current place of
incarceration is ordered to make deductions from plaintiff's
account and payment to the Clerk of the Court as stated herein.
A copy of this order shall be sent to the trust fund officer at
Cook County Jail. This dismissal counts as one of plaintiff's

three allotted dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

ENTER:

UMinT. bebo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: OCTOBER Q , 2002


United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Nash¢ of aka Jou Sitting Judge if Other
Haack Judge WILLIAM T. HART than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 6015 DATE OocT. x , 2002
CASE LOUIS C. MALONE v. REGINALD HARDAWAY, ED ORTEGA,
TITLE and ANN TAYLOR
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state bricfly the nature

MOTION: of the motion being presented.]

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due

(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.

(4) Qo Ruling/Hearing on set for at

(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at

(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at :

(7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for] on at

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) im} This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OOFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1. OOFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) MH [Other docket entry] Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [3] is granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B), plaintiff's cause of action is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment
in favor of defendants Reginald Hardaway, Ed Ortega, and Ann Taylor and against plaintiff Louis Malone
denying plaintiff's cause of action. The trust fund officer at plaintiff's current place of incarceration is ordered
to make deductions from plaintiff's account and payment to the Clerk of the Court as stated herein. A copy of
this order shall be sent to the trust fund officer at Cook County Jail. This dismissal counts as one of plaintiff's
three allotted dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

(11) of [For further detail see attached Memorandum Opinion and Order.]

No notices required, advised in open court,
2
No notices required. vunber ef roves
a | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Notified counsel by telephone. OCT 9,9, 2002
Docketing to mail notices.
Y | Mail AO 450 form. Laas | sn
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
doe. 078/202
, date mailed notice
courtroom
ow deputy’s mud
initials
Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office mailing initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

LOUIS C. MALONE,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 02 ¢ 6015

REGINALD HARDAWAY, ED ORTEGA,
and ANN TAYLOR,

Defendants.

HOLES:
OCT 09 2002

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The court finds that plaintiff, Louis Malone, a detainee
confined at Cook County Jail, is unable to prepay the filing fee.
The court grants plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis
and assesses an initial partial filing fee of $4.20 pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) (1). The trust fund officer at plaintiff's
current place of incarceration is ordered to collect, when funds
exist, the partial filing fee from plaintiff's trust fund account
and pay it directly to the clerk of court. Thereafter, the trust
fund officer at the correctional facility where plaintiff is
confined is directed to collect monthly payments from plaintiff's
trust fund account in the amount of 20% of the preceding month's

income credited to the account. Monthly payments collected from


plaintiff's trust fund account shall be forwarded to the clerk of
court each time the account balance exceeds $10 until the full
$150 filing fee is paid. Separate deductions and payments shall
be made with respect to each action or appeal filed by plaintiff.
All payments shall be sent to the Clerk, United States District
Court, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604, attn:

Fiscal Dept., and shall clearly identify plaintiff's name and the
case number assigned to this action.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2), the court is directed to
dismiss a suit brought in forma pauperis at any time if the court
determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested for a parole
violation. He claims he was picked up because he was living at
his sister's house, as instructed by his parole officer, rather
than living at his mother's house where he was originally
assigned. Nevertheless, the parole board determined that
plaintiff had violated the terms of his parole. After ten and
one-half months of incarceration, plaintiff submitted a document
stating that he had not violated the terms of his parole, and was
then released, having been detained "in error" as plaintiff
states. Named as defendants are the chairman of the Prison

Review Board, a parole officer, and a parole supervisor.