FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 27, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 15233 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -017 54 -C V -R W S -1 P A U L H O L M E S , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s B O B C R O S B Y , G A R F I E L D H A M M O N D S , J R ., E U G E N E P . W A L K E R , B E T T Y A N N C O O K , W A L T E R S . R A Y , B O B B Y W H I T W O R T H , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 27, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es.Holmes admitted to ref using to underg o urine testingin violation of his parole. The 1 remaining c harg es were f ound to lack proba

ble ca use. 2 P E R C U R I A M: T he de f e nda nt s i n thi s c i vi l r i ght s a c t i on, m e m be r s of the G e or gi a B oa r d of P ar do ns and P ar ol es and an i nd i vi du al parol e off i ce r ( col l ec t i vel y the “ B oard”), ap p e a l th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f th e irm o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. I . FACT S O n D ec em ber 10, 19 96 , P l ai nt i ff P aul H ol m es w as re l ea se d o n p ar ol e a ft er se rvi ng hi s s ent ence i n G eorgi a f or arm ed robb ery a nd aggravat ed as saul t . In r e s p o n s e to h is r e q u e s t f o rr e lo c a tio n , h e w a s p e r m itte d to s e r v e h is p r o b a tio n in F l ori da. U po n h i s r el ea se fr om pri son, he w as i ss ued a parol e c ert i fi ca t e, w hi ch c ont a i ne d the c ondi t i ons of hi s pa r ol e a nd a di r e c t i ve on how t o c ont a c tthe G e o r g ia I n te r s ta te C o m p a c t U n it if h e lo s t c o n ta c t w ith h is a s s ig n e d p a r o le o f f ic e r . I n 1999, F l or i da a uthor i t i e s i nf or m e d the B oa r d of

s e ve r a l pa r ol e vi ol a t i ons w hi ch H ol m es al l egedl y c om m i tt ed. A ta probabl e c ause hear i ng , H ol m es pl ea ded g u ilty to a s in g le c h a r g e o f v io la tin g h is p a r o le . S e v e r a l m o n th s la te r , G e o r g ia 1 au th o ri t i es i n q u i red i n t o th e st atu s o f p en d i n g cri m i n al ch arg es ag ai n stH o l m es, and w er e i nform ed thatthe charges w er e nol l e pr os s e qui . G eorgi a s entanother le tte rto F lo r id a r e q u e s tin g th a t F lo r id a c o n tin u e its p a r o le s u p e r v is io n o f H o lm e s . F l ori da di d n otre spon d exp edi t i ou sl y t o thi s r equest , and sub se qu ent l y r el ea se d3

H o lm e s f r o m h is p a r o le . T he F l ori da autho ri t i es eventual l y i nform ed the B oard thati thad cl osed i nt er es ti n H ol m es ’ s c as e a nd further i nd i ca t ed thatthe ca se coul d n otbe re -opened w ith o u t m o r e in f

o r m a tio n o n H o lm e s ’s lo c a tio n . W h e n th e B o a r d r e c e iv e d th is i nf or m a t i on, a m e m be rof

the G e or gi a I nt e r s t a t e C om pa c tS e r vi c e c ont a c t e d the M i am i D ad e C o u n ty M etro P o l i ce an d att em p t ed t o l o cat e H o l m es ath i s l ast k n o w n ad d re ss , w h ich w as h is sister ’s re sid en ce . A m an li v in g at H o lm es ’s sister ’s r e s i de nc e i ndi c a t e d tha tH ol m e s no l onge rl i ve d the r e . T he f ol l ow i ng da y , the B oa r d i s s ue d a n a rr e s tw a rr a nta nd O r de rof T e m por a ry R e voc a t i on of P a r ol e f or H ol m es base d u po n the G eorgi a I nt er st at e C om pactS ervi ce ’ s r es ea rc h and bel i ef th a t H o lm e s h a d ab s c o n d e d f r o m p a r o le s u p e r v is io n . H ol m e s w a s a rr e s t e d on G e or gi a ’ s pa r ol e w a rr a nton D e c e m be r28, 2000 a nd s ubs e que nt l y r e turne d t o G e or gi a . H ol m e s w a s de ni e d a pr e l i m i na ry he a r i ng because of hi s “ parol e abscond er ” s t atus. A fi nal parol e r evocat i on hear i ng w as no thel d u nt i l M ar ch 21 , 20 01 . A tthe heari ng , H ol m es t es t i fi ed thathe had w ri tt en to th e B o a r d f

o rin s tru c tio n s a f

te rb e in g to ld th a t h e w a s n o lo n g e ro n p a r o le in F l ori da, bu tre ce i ved n o answ er , and w as never t ol d thathi s par ol e s up ervi si on had b een tran sferred t o G eo rg i a. T h e C h i ef P aro l e O ffi cer i n G eo rg i a, B o b C ro sb y, t es t i fi ed thatno thi ng had g on e w rong i n H ol m es ’ s c as e, and thatF l ori da had cl osedHo lme s h a d b e e n in c arc e rate d o n th epa ro levio latio n f

or e le ven mo nth s. 2 Specifically , he re quested moneta ry relief in the amount of $100,000 jointly and 3 severally ag ainst each of the de fenda nts for compensatory

damag es and $20,000 ag ainst each of the def endants for

punitive damag es. The only decla ratory relief he re quested wa s a statement indicatingthat the def

endants had violated his constitutional right to due proc ess. 4 i nt e r e s ti n the c a s e be c a us e a uthor i t i e s c oul d notl oc a t e H ol m e s . B a s e d on the te s tim o n y p r o v id e d a t th e h e a r in g , th e B o a r d r e v o k e d H o lm e s ’s p a r o le . H ol m e s appl i e d f

ora w r i tof

habe a s c orpus . T he s t a t e c our tr e ve r s e d the f i ndi ngs the B oa r d m a de a tthe i ni t i a l he a r i ng a nd or de r e d the B oa r d t o pr ovi de H ol m e s w i th a nothe rf

i na l pa r ol e r e voc a t i on he a r i ng. A tthe s e c ond he a r i ng on O c to b e r3 , 2 0 0 1 , H o lm e s c o n te n d e d th a t a lth o u g h h e k n e w h e w a s s u p p o s e d to r e por t , he di d notknow t o w hom . T he he a r i ng of f i c e ra gr e e d tha t“ the r e s e e m [ e d] t o b e ase ri ou s bre ac h i n com m un i ca t i on betw ee n F l ori da and G eorgi a i n ref er ence t o [H o l m es] . ” T h u s, th e B o ard rep aro l ed H o l m es. 2 O n J une 23, 2003, H ol m e s f i l e d a 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a ga i ns tB ob C r os by a nd the f

ol l ow i ng m e m be r s of

the B oa r d: ( 1) G a r f

i e l d H a m m onds , J r . ; ( 2) E ug ene W al ker; (3) B etty A nn C oo k; (4) B ob by W hi tw orth; and (5) W al t erS . R ay a l l i n the i ri ndi vi dua l c apa c i t i e s . H ol m e s a s s e r t e d c l a i m s f orf a l s e i m pr i s onm e nt a nd vi ol a t i on of

hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s . H e r e que s t e d both m one t a ry a nd decl ar at ory r el i ef

. 3 T he B oa r d m ove d f

ors um m a ry j udgm e nt , a r gui ng tha tthe r e w a s noThe district cour t denied summary

judgment to the Boa

rd member s in their individual 4 capacities but grante d summary judgment to the Boa

rd member s in their officials capacities. A review o f H olm e s’ s c omp laint , h ow e ver, indic ate s th at hedid no t su etheB oa

rd me mbersin t

he ir official capacities. Thus, we de cline to address this issue. 5 const i tut i on al ri gh tt o p ar ol e a nd thatC rosby a nd the B oard m em bers w er e e nt i t l ed t o q ual i fi ed i m m un i ty. T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed the B oard’ s m ot i on for s um m ary ju d g m e n t. T h e B o a r d n o w ap p e a ls .

4 I I . DI S C US S I ON A . Stan da rd of

R ev i ew W e r e v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t de no vo , vi e w i ng th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e p a r ty o p p o s in g th e m o tio n . E v ans ton I ns . C o. v . Stone w al l

Sur plus L i ne s I

ns . C o. , 1 1 1 F .3 d 8 5 2 , 8 5 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . B . A b s o lu te Q u a s i-J

u d ic ia l I m m u n ity T o est abl i sh a c l ai m un der 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3, a pl ai nt i ff m ustprov e ( 1) a vi ol at i on of a c on st i tut i on al ri gh t , and (2) thatthe al l eged vi ol at i on w as com m i tt ed b y a p e r s o n a c tin g u n d e rc o lo ro f s ta te la w . W

e s t v . A tki ns , 487 U . S . 42, 48, 108 S .C t. 2 2 5 0 , 2 2 5 4 - 5 5 , 1 0 1 L .E d . 2 d 4 0 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . O n ap p e a l, th e B o a r d m e m b e r s c o n te n d th a t th e y a r e n o t o n ly e n title d to qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty, bu tthatthey a re al so ent i t l ed t o absol ut e quasi -j ud i ci alTh eB oa rd a ssert e d this de fens ein its “ Ma ndator y Di sc los ure s”be low , a

nd there fo rethi s 5 issue was properly

raised be forethe district court. We also note that in Cleavinger v. Saxner , 474 U.S. 193, 200, 106 S.C t. 496, 500, 88 6 L .E d. 2d 50 7 ( 19 85 ), theSup remeCourt ob serv e d th at several f

e deral a pp e llatec ourt s h avehe ld 6 i m m un i ty. W e r epea t edl y have hel d thati nd i vi du al m em bers of the P ar ol e B oard

5 a r e e n title d to ab s o lu te q u a s i- ju d ic ia l im m u n ity f

r o m a s u it f

o rd a m a g e s . Ful l erv. G eorgi a S tat e B d. of

P ardo ns & P arol es , 85 1 F . 2d 13 07 , 13 10 (11th C i r. 19 88 ); see a l so C lark v . Stat e of

G a. P ar dons & P ar ol e s B d. , 9 1 5 F .2 d 6 3 6 , 6 4 1 n .2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ; Sul t e nf

us s v . Snow , 8 9 4 F .2 d 1 2 7 7 , 1 2 7 8 - 7 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) , vacat ed and af f i rm e d on othe rgr ounds af t e rr e he ar i ng e n banc , 35 F . 3d 14 94 (11th C i r. 1994) . T hus , w e hol d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n pe r m i tt i ng the c l a i m s f or m o n et ary d am ag es t o p ro ceed ag ai n stth e i n d i v i d u al B o ard m em b ers. W e h av e n o tyetd et erm i n ed , h o w ev er, w h eth er a p aro l e o ffi cer i s al so e nt i t l e d t o qua s i -

j udi c i a l i m m uni ty . W e he l d i n H ug hes v . C hess er , 731 F . 2d 1489, 1490 ( 11th C i r . 1984) tha tpr oba t i on of f i c e r s r e c e i ve i m m uni ty i n pr e pa r i ng pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t s . A ddi t i ona l l y , w e he l d i n J one s v . C annon , 174 F . 3d 12 71 , 12 81 (11th C i r. 19 99 ), thatw i tness es i n cri m i nal tri al s a nd grand j ury p r o c e e d in g s a r e a f

f o r d e d ab s o lu te im m u n ity e v e n if th e irte s tim o n y is f

a ls e . W e a ls o s ta te d th a t “th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s in te rp r e te d § 1 9 8 3 to g iv e ab s o lu te i m m un i ty t o fun ct i on s i nt i m at el y a ss oci at ed w i th the j ud i ci al proces s. ” I d. (i nt ernal quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . A l though a pa r ol e he a r i ng i s nota c r i m i na l he a r i ng orgr a nd 6that state parole offic ials have a bsolute immuni ty . B e c a us eweho ld t

hat Cros by

and theB oa rd me mbersaree ntitle d toa bs olutequ a si- 7 judicial immunity , their alter native qualifie d immunity defense is moot. 7 j ury procee di ng , w e r ea d the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s a nd ou r pre vi ou s c as es t o i m pl y that pa r ol e of f i c e r s e nj oy i m m uni ty f

ort e s t i m ony gi ve n dur i ng pa r ol e r e voc a t i on hear i ng s w hen they a ctw i thi n the sc op e of thei r dut i es . T hu s, because C rosby w as ac t i ng w i thi n the sc op e of hi s dut i es w hen h e t es t i fi ed, w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ct co u rterred i n p erm i tt i n g th e cl ai m s fo r m o n et ary d am ag es t o p ro ceed ag ai n st C ro sb y. 7 I I I . C ON C L US I ON Ac c o r d i n g l y , we R E VE R S E th e d e n i a l o f s u m m a ry j u d g m e n ta n d R E MAND for the di stri ctcourtt o d i sm i ss the m on et ary c l ai m s a gai nstthe B oard m em bers and C rosby on the basi s of absol ut e quasi -j ud i ci al i m m un i ty. F urtherm ore, on ce the m on et ary dam ages ar e di sm i ss ed, the on l y r em ai ni ng cl ai m i s f or decl ar at ory r e l i e f . A s the r e i s no de c l a r a t ory r e l i e f a va i l abl e , s um m a ry j udgm e nts houl d be g r a n te d o n th is c la im .