Document: 444 U.S. 277 100 S.Ct. 553 62 L.Ed.2d 481 George MARTINEZ et al., Appellants,v.STATE OF CALIFORNIA al. No. 78-1268. Argued Nov. 5, 1979. Decided Jan. 15, 1980. Rehearing Denied March 3, See 445 920, 1285. Syllabus Appellants' decedent, a 15-year-old girl, was murdered by parolee five months after he released from prison despite his history as sex offender. Appellants brought an action in California court under state law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that appellee officials, their releasing the parolee, subjected decedent to deprivation of her life without due process were therefore liable damages for harm caused parolee. The trial sustained demurrer complaint. Court Appeal affirmed, holding statute granting public employees absolute immunity liability any injury resulting parole-release determinations provided appellees with complete defense appellants' state-law claims, enjoyed quasi-judicial 1983. Held : 1. is not unconstitutional when applied defeat tort claim arising law. Pp. 280-283. (a) statute, which merely provides potential tort-law liability, did deprive because it condoned parole decision led indirectly death. A legislative has incremental impact on probability death will result given situation cannot be characterized depriving person just may set motion chain events ultimately leads random innocent bystander. P. 281. (b) Even if can property, State's interest fashioning its own rules paramount discernible federal interest, except perhaps protecting individual citizen wholly arbitrary or irrational action. Legislature could reasonably conclude judicial review decisions "would inevitably inhibit exercise discretion" this inhibiting effect impair ability implement program designed promote rehabilitation inmates well security within prisons out promise rewards. 281-283. 2. allege relief 283-285. Fourteenth Amendment protected only State law, although release State, parolee's later fairly 284-285. Regardless whether, matter board either had "duty" avoid victim proximately death, "deprive" meaning Amendment. 285. (c) Under particular circumstances where no sense agent board, aware distinguished at large, faced special danger, decedent's too remote consequence appellees' hold them responsible 85 Cal.App.3d 430, 149 Cal.Rptr. 519, affirmed. Donald McGrath, II, San Diego, Cal., appellants. Jeffrey T. Miller, appellees. Mr. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. 1 two questions appellants ask us decide are (1) whether invalidates who make determinations, (2) such officials absolutely immune Civil Rights Act 1871, 1983.1 We agree valid claims we have alleged 2 case arises murder girl Her survivors 3 complaint one Thomas, convicted attempted rape December 1969. He first committed mental hospital "Mentally Disordered Sex Offender amenable treatment" thereafter sentenced term imprisonment 20 years, recommendation paroled. Nevertheless, years later, decided Thomas care mother. They fully informed about history, propensities, likelihood would commit another violent crime. Moreover, making determination they failed observe certain "requisite formalities." Five tortured killed decedent. assume, alleges, knew, should known, created clear present danger incident occur. Their negligent, but also reckless, willful, wanton malicious.2 prayed actual punitive $2 million. 4 judge order upheld appeal. 519 (1978). After Supreme denied petition hearing, noted probable jurisdiction. 441 960, 99 2403, 60 1064. 5 * Section 845.8(a) Cal. Gov't Code Ann. (West Supp. (1979)) provides: 6 "Neither entity nor employee for: 7 Any determining prisoner terms conditions revoke release." 8 courts held claims.3 considered rejected contention so construed violates Due Process Clause Federal Constitution.4 9 Like courts, accept deprived Thomas' neither authorized immunized deliberate killing human being. It equivalent penalty expressly authorizes agents take person's prescribed procedures been observed. This liability. At most, availability encouraged members somewhat greater risks recidivism exercising authority prisoners than otherwise might. But basic risk repeat offenses occur always system. situation—such setting speed limit 55-miles-per-hour instead 45—cannot 10 Nor invalid property. Arguably, cause wrongful species "property" Clause. On hypothesis, viewed plaintiffs property insofar seek assert against officials.5 even characterizes statutory deprivation, remain true irrational. 11 difficulty accepting California's conclusion there "is rational relationship between state's purposes statute."6 In policy "practical troublesome area" like this, see McGinnis v. Royster, 410 263, 270, 93 1055, 1059, 35 282, officer's discretion," United States ex rel. Miller Twomey, 479 F.2d 701, 721 (CA7 1973), cert. denied, 414 1146, 94 900, 39 102. That walls Whether agrees disagrees provide kind, deny rationally furthers reasonable lawmakers favor. As judges, pass judgment wisdom underlying determination. find merit II 12 turn then 1983 appellees, law.7 does control though being asserted courts.8 necessary question concerning because, recently Baker McCollan, 443 137, 2689, 61 433, "[t]he inquiry suit . plaintiff right 'secured Constitution laws' " States.9 answer disposes case. 13 contend Constitution. "State law." Although said Grimm Arizona Bd. Pardons Paroles, 115 Ariz. 260, 564 P.2d 1227 (1977); Palsgraf Long Island R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. (1928), that, taking these allegations true, 14 taken release.10 board. Cf. Scheuer Rhodes, 416 232, 1683, 40 90. Further, danger. need do officer never deemed someone connection parole.11 least decision, officers' civil rights described "a liability," Imbler Pachtman, 424 409, 417, 96 984, 988, 47 128, perfectly every official played some part actionable statute. 15 16 So ordered. "Every who, color ordinance, regulation, custom, usage, Territory, subjects, causes subjected, other jurisdiction thereof rights, privileges, immunities secured laws, shall party injured equity, proper proceeding redress." refers failure supervise release, warn females area original litigation focused entirely decision. responsibility postrelease supervision Thomas. dismissal charging negligent predicated concession "continuing victim," 435, 523 (1978), requirement ". No enforce abridge privileges citizens States; life, liberty, law; equal protection laws." U.S.Const., Amdt. 14, presented jurisdictional statement posits Equal Protection challenge point actually briefed raised treated below. further reference challenge. arguable, however, defense, element itself, aspect definition interest. Recently, considering lawyer's malpractice action, "when creates free define defenses claim, including immunity, unless, course, rule conflict Ferri Ackerman, 193, 198, 402, 406, 355. "Martinez says Government section 845.8, subdivision (a), permits fundamental right, process. suggests confers actions Mary Ellen's and, thus, requires compelling However, broad powers governmental limited act arbitrarily (Reed City & County Francisco, 237 Cal.App.2d 23, 24, 46 543). Tort Claims whole (Gov.Code 810 seq.) found constitutional (Datil Los Angeles, 263 655, 660-661, 69 788). stated purpose allow correctional personnel unfettered fear (Law Revision Com. com.). To impose chilling decision-making process, impede implementation programs prolong incarceration unjustifiably many prisoners. There statute." Cal.App.3d, 437, Cal.Rptr., 524. mention response relying federally States." Record 59. note accepted claim. appears consistent general 'an Congress gives aggrieved, specifying remedy enforcement, reason why enforced, Congress, court.' Testa Katt, 330 386, 391, 67 810, 813, 91 L.Ed. 967, quoting Claflin Houseman, 130, 23 833. Aldinger Howard, 427 1, 36, n. 17, 2413, 2430, 49 276 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting); Grubb Public Utilities Comm'n, 281 470, 476, 50 374, 377, 74 972. considered, must entertain same type enforced generally refuse enforcement U.S., 394, S.Ct., 814. Chamberlain Brown, 223 Tenn. 25, 442 S.W.2d (1969). "Conduct persons acting 1985(3) construction permitted controlling transmute guarantee into illusory promise; supremacy clause insures enforced. McLaughlin Tilendis, 398 287, 290 (7th Cir. 1968). raises Hampton Chicago, 484 602, 607 415 917, 1413, 471. 140, 2692. dissent case, issue divided was, assuming constitutionally what due. disagreement majority's methodology isolating infringement complained of. Since here reach lack "due process" adequately remembered erroneous, necessarily follow violated individual's Compare facts Screws States, 325 91, 65 1031, 89 1495, local themselves beat reserve any, violation made allegations.

Category: 1