Opinion ID: 787920
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Recommending Initiation of Parole Revocation Proceedings

Text: 34 An agency official, like a prosecutor, may have broad discretion in deciding whether a proceeding should be brought and what sanctions should be sought[,] and should be able to claim absolute immunity with respect to such acts. Butz, 438 U.S. at 515, 98 S.Ct. 2894. 35 In Miller, we explained that a social worker's decision to institute proceedings to make a child a ward of the state is functionally similar to the prosecutorial institution of a criminal proceeding and is likely entitled to absolute immunity. Miller, 335 F.3d at 898. By contrast, in Scotto, the Second Circuit reasoned that when a parole officer recommends that a senior official initiate parole revocation proceedings, the recommendation is not comparable to initiating a prosecution and is more analogous to a police officer applying for an arrest warrant. Scotto, 143 F.3d at 112-13. The recommending officer is thus only entitled to qualified immunity, while the senior official who makes the discretionary decision to issue the warrant is the one who initiates the revocation prosecution and is absolutely immune. Id. at 113. 5 36 The issue in Scotto turned on an analysis of New York's regulations regarding the Division of Parole. Under the New York regulations, if a parole officer believes that a parolee ... has violated a condition of his parole, `such parole officer shall report such fact to a member of the board or a designated officer.' Id. at 112 (quoting N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9, § 8004.2(a)) (emphasis in original). Once the board receives the report, [t]he member or designated officer may issue a warrant.... N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9, § 8004.2(b) (emphasis added). Thus, while the regulations direct the parole officer to report what he believes to be a violation of a condition of parole, they give the board discretion as to issuing a warrant. The board, therefore, not the officer, plays a quasi-judicial role. 37 The California Code of Regulations establishes an analogous relationship between CDC parole agents and the BPT. The P & CSD shall report to the board any parolee who is reasonably believed to have committed certain enumerated violations. Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2616(a) (emphasis added). Once the report is forwarded to the BPT, [t]he board is authorized to revoke parole in any case where the parolee has violated parole. Id. at § 2615 (emphasis added). Like parole officers under the New York regulations, parole officers under the California regulations must report parole violations, while the BPT is given the discretion to initiate the revocation proceedings. 6 See id. (Parole violations ... must be reported to the board.). 38 Swift alleges that Christian and Rodriguez request[ed] an order for a revocation hearing based upon falsified and suppressed evidence. Construing this allegation in the light most favorable to Swift, as we must, this statement parallels the regulations and suggests that Christian and Rodriguez performed a non-discretionary function, while another official made the discretionary prosecutorial decision to issue the order for a revocation hearing. We conclude that, like the parole officer in Scotto, Christian and Rodriguez's actions requesting that the BPT initiate revocation proceedings, were more akin to a police officer seeking an arrest warrant, than to a prosecutor exercising quasi-judicial discretion to initiate criminal proceedings. Thus, Christian and Rodriguez are not entitled to absolute immunity for recommending that the BPT initiate revocation proceedings. 7