Opinion ID: 541
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Civil Rights Complaint

Text: Mr. Ellibee’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint sets forth multiple and abstruse claims of constitutional error. In its order dismissing the complaint, the district court keyed on the claims of due-process violations. The Due Process Clause does not guarantee an inmate a right to parole, although a state’s parole statutes and regulations may create a liberty interest that is entitled to due-process protection. See Malek v. Haun, 26 F.3d 1013, 1015 (10th Cir. 1994). The Kansas Supreme Court, however, has held that the Kansas parole statute does not create a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Gilmore v. Kan. Parole Bd., 756 P.2d 410, 415 (Kan. 1988) (“K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 22-3717 does not create a liberty interest in parole.”); see also Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3717(g) (“[T]he Kansas parole board may release on parole those persons . . . who are eligible for parole.”) (emphasis added). Because parole is discretionary in Kansas, Mr. Ellibee cannot invoke the procedural guarantees of the Due Process Clause. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 250-51 (1983). Accordingly, the district court properly analyzed Mr. Ellibee’s due-process claims. The district court’s order did not give similar attention to Mr. Ellibee’s remaining claims. In particular, we note the lack of discussion related to allegations that the parole board retaliated against him because of his litigation activities on behalf of himself and other prisoners. “Prison officials may not -5- retaliate against . . . an inmate because of the inmate’s exercise of his right of access to the courts” and “[i]t is well established that prison officials may not unreasonably hamper inmates in gaining access to the courts.” Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 947 (10th Cir. 1990). This court and other federal courts have recognized actionable constitutional claims in inmates’ allegations of denial of parole in retaliation for filing lawsuits. E.g., Shabazz v. Askins, 980 F.2d 1333, 1335 (10th Cir. 1992) (reversing a district court’s dismissal of a parole-retaliation claim as frivolous); Clark v. Ga. Pardons & Paroles Bd., 915 F.2d 636, 639 (11th Cir. 1990) (holding allegation that parole was denied for pursuing litigation stated a claim upon which relief can be granted); Serio v. Members of La. State Bd. of Pardons, 821 F.2d 1112, 1114 (5th Cir. 1987) (recognizing that a factually supported allegation that parole board denied parole in retaliation for filing lawsuits against prison officials may state an equal protection claim). To be sure, a complaint cannot withstand dismissal unless a plaintiff pleads specific facts showing retaliatory motive. Peterson v. Shanks, 149 F.3d 1140, 1144 (10th Cir. 1998). But we must conclude that the district court erred in dismissing the action without evaluating the allegations underlying Mr. Ellibee’s retaliation claim. It is appropriate for the district court to determine in the first instance the legal sufficiency of Mr. Ellibee’s listing of his litigation efforts and allegations that a parole board member made extensive inquiries into his litigation -6- activities. Though the district court was patently correct in its dismissal of the due-process claims, on remand it should address the retaliation claim and any other claim that has not yet received judicial scrutiny. We REVERSE and REMAND the § 1983 claims to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this order and judgment.