Opinion ID: 1625212
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Parole Board Members Ruth, Sykes, Kaelin, Figgs and Carter

Text: The complaint against the five parole board members sued personally in their individual and official capacities presents another matter, for these are the people who in law and in fact set Jimpson free. The decisions whether one in custody should be granted parole is attended with broad discretion, Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-17 (1972), as parole is more a matter of grace than of right. Williams v. State, 445 So.2d 798, 813 (Miss. 1984); Davis v. State, 429 So.2d 262, 263 (Miss. 1983). Indeed, exercise of that discretionary authority is one of the toughest judgment calls any state official may be called upon to make. On the one hand, the offer and somewhat regular grant of parole is an essential ingredient of any rational correctional policy. On the other hand, experience teaches that not even the most careful screening may eliminate all recidivism. In the best run system there will be some parolees who will commit new offenses while on parole. Our task today is narrow and procedural. Looking to the amended complaint we find that Grantham has charged that the members of the Parole Board paroled Jimpson with reckless disregard for her safety. She charges that, prior to their parole decision, these board members did not review all pertinent information, the circumstances of Jimpson's offense [murder in the course of a robbery], nor his previous social history and criminal record. Continuing, Grantham's amended complaint charges that these Defendants failed to consider the twenty-two (22) years Jimpson had spent in prison; the five (5) armed robbery charges and a murder dropped after his conviction in December of 1972; and his previous escape from the State Penitentiary at Parchman... . The Defendants failed to inquire about Jimpson's conduct, employment and attitude while in the custody of the Department, and they failed to ascertain whether or not any physical or mental examinations had been made. These actions, Grantham charges, were substantial departures from the duties imposed upon the members of the Parole Board by Section 47-7-17. There are other charges alluded to at the outset, but which need not be here detailed. What is said above is enough. Grantham has charged that Defendants Ruth, Sykes, Kaelin, Figgs and Carter have been guilty of gross neglect of their duties under Section 47-7-17. Though we reject the notion that those duties be classed ministerial, Grantham's amended complaint seems sufficient to pierce the shield of these officials' qualified immunity to suit as outlined above. We certainly may not say with confidence that she can, consistent with her allegations, prove no set of facts which would entitle her to relief. The judgment of the Circuit Court dismissing Grantham's amended complaint against Defendants Ruth, Sykes, Kaelin, Figgs and Carter is reversed and this case is remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, as though the motion to dismiss had been denied. Breland v. Smith-Johnson, Inc., 501 So.2d 389, 393 (Miss. 1987); Whitten v. Commercial Dispatch Publishing Company, Inc., 487 So.2d 843, 846 (Miss. 1986); McCain v. Northwestern National Insurance Co., 484 So.2d 1001, 1002 (Miss. 1986). We intend that not the slightest hint be perceived how this case ought ultimately be decided. Certainly, we in no way intimate that Grantham ought recover, or, for that matter that her claim ought survive summary judgment. Suffice to say that many obstacles loom large before her, not the least of which is causation. See Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 285, 100 S.Ct. 553, 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 481, 489 (1980). What  and all  we hold this day is that Grantham's amended complaint has, as to these five Defendants, stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., and PRATHER, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON, GRIFFIN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur. DAN M. LEE, P.J., concurs in part and dissents in part.