Court Opinion

ID: 9353668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 16:00:36.042216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:10:18.086035
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-4077        Document: 010110796762    Date Filed: 01/12/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      Tenth Circuit

                                 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                      January 12, 2023
                             _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  PAUL WACH,

            Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                          No. 22-4077
                                                     (D.C. No. 2:20-CV-00847-JNP)
  CARRIE L. COCHRAN; GREG                                       (D. Utah)
  JOHNSON,

            Defendants - Appellees,

  and

  BRETT VAROZ; MARSHALL
  THOMPSON; MIKE HADDON; UTAH
  BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLE;
  UTAH DEPARTMENT OF
  CORRECTIONS BOARD AND PAROLE
  MEMBERS; UTAH DEPARTMENT OF
  CORRECTIONS; DONA CAMPAGNA,

        Defendants.
                             _________________________________

                                 ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                             _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, KELLY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.**
                   _________________________________

        *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
 of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
 its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
        **
           After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellate Case: 22-4077    Document: 010110796762        Date Filed: 01/12/2023     Page: 2

       Plaintiff Paul Wach, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s

 dismissal of his civil rights complaint on screening. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); Wach v. Utah

 Bd. of Pardons & Parole, No. 20-CV-847, 2022 WL 3082897 (D. Utah Aug. 3, 2022).

 Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

                                          Background

       In an amended complaint,1 Mr. Wach named Utah Board of Pardons and

 Parole (BPP) Chair Carrie Cochran, BPP member Greg Johnson, and John/Jane Does

 1–10 as defendants. R. 120–22. It is unclear who the John/Jane Does refer to, as

 they are only described as unnamed employees of the BPP. R. 122.

       Mr. Wach alleged that Ms. Cochran and Mr. Johnson violated his rights to

 procedural and substantive due process and equal protection, as well as to be free of

 cruel and unusual punishment. R. 125–26. He alleged that approximately around

 April 2019, Ms. Cochran and Mr. Johnson each made comments that he had been

 given his full BPP file, but then in May 2019 he received a letter stating that he had

 1
   Defendants were not served and did not appear in the district court or in this appeal.
 The district court ordered Mr. Wach to cure the deficiencies in his initial complaint,
 which, in addition to naming Ms. Cochran and Mr. Johnson, named as defendants the
 Utah Department of Corrections, the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole, and four other
 individuals. On appeal, Mr. Wach focuses on the dismissal of his claims against Ms.
 Cochran and Mr. Johnson. Insofar as the unnamed and unserved defendants, they are not
 parties to the case and do not prevent a dismissal order on all other claims from being
 “final and appealable.” See Raiser v. Utah Cnty., 409 F.3d 1243, 1245 n.2 (10th Cir.
 2005).

                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-4077    Document: 010110796762         Date Filed: 01/12/2023    Page: 3

 not been given two items that were in the file. R. 123. He alleged that this omission

 led to a longer time in prison and caused him various emotional injuries. R. 126. He

 sought damages, a fine, and an order that the BPP not retaliate against him. R. 128.

       The district court held that the two named defendants were absolutely immune

 from damages liability based upon their decision to deny him parole and that the

 Utah parole statute did not create a liberty interest protected by the federal

 constitution. It also determined that no facts supported an order against retaliation

 and no authority allowed it to impose a fine in these circumstances. On appeal, Mr.

 Wach contends that he was denied a parole date (and a rehearing date was set) based

 upon false information that was not disclosed to him and that the parole board is not

 immune.

                                        Discussion

       We note that Mr. Wach is proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not 28 U.S.C.

 § 2241. We construe pro se pleadings liberally, but do not act as advocates for pro se

 litigants. United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009). “Dismissal

 for failure to state a claim is a legal question we review de novo.” Young v. Davis,

 554 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir. 2009). We accept all well-pleaded factual allegations

 in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

 Id. To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the facts as alleged must state a

 plausible claim for relief which must be more than a “sheer possibility.” Ashcroft v.

 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

                                             3
Appellate Case: 22-4077     Document: 010110796762         Date Filed: 01/12/2023     Page: 4

        On appeal, Mr. Wach argues that the district court erred because BPP members

 are not entitled to immunity from damages liability if they engage in intentional

 wrongdoing. Aplt. Br. at 2, 4. Members of the BPP are “absolutely immune from

 damages liability for actions taken in performance of the Board’s official duties

 regarding the granting or denying of parole.” Knoll v. Webster, 838 F.2d 450, 451

 (10th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). Here, all indications are that Ms. Cochran and Mr.

 Johnson’s comments came within the scope of their official duties. Thus, both

 defendants have absolute immunity with respect to Mr. Wach’s claim for damages.

 There is no other basis for Mr. Wach’s requested injunctive relief.

        Moreover, there is no constitutional right of a validly convicted person to be

 conditionally released before the end of their sentence — the valid conviction “has

 extinguished that liberty right.” Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr.

 Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979). Mr. Wach argues that the Utah parole statute creates

 a liberty interest, but this circuit has held repeatedly that the Utah statute places no

 limits on the BPP’s discretion and does not create a liberty interest protectable by the

 U.S. Constitution. Straley v. Utah Bd. of Pardons, 582 F.3d 1208, 1214–15 (10th

 Cir. 2009); Malek v. Haun, 26 F.3d 1013, 1016 (10th Cir. 1994). Further, denial of

 parole under a statute which vests discretion in the parole board is not cruel and

 unusual punishment. Lustgarden v. Gunter, 966 F.2d 552, 555 (10th Cir. 1992).

 Thus, Mr. Wach has not stated a plausible claim for relief.

                                              4
Appellate Case: 22-4077   Document: 010110796762     Date Filed: 01/12/2023   Page: 5

       AFFIRMED.

                                        Entered for the Court

                                        Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
                                        Circuit Judge

                                        5