David M. Deloria v. Ed Lightenberg , 400 F. App'x 117 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 10-2358
    ___________
    David M. Deloria,                      *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                               * District Court for the
    * District of South Dakota.
    Ed Lightenberg, Director of P.N.P.,    *
    SDSP Bd of P.N.P.; Douglas Weber,      * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Warden SDSP; South Dakota Board        *
    of Pardons and Paroles; Kay Nikolas, *
    Bd. Member; Patricia Meyers, Bd.       *
    Member; Mr. Alders, Bd. Member;        *
    James Smith, Bd. Member; Dave          *
    Nelson, Bd. Member,                    *
    *
    Appellees.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: November 1, 2010
    Filed: November 4, 2010
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    South Dakota inmate David Deloria appeals the district court’s1 dismissal
    without prejudice of his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     complaint asserting that he was improperly
    denied parole and good time credits, in violation of his due process rights.
    Upon careful de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 
    200 F.3d 1170
    , 1171 (8th Cir.
    2000) (per curiam) (dismissal under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)); Cooper v. Schriro,
    
    189 F.3d 781
    , 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A),
    we conclude that Deloria failed to state a claim. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 
    544 U.S. 74
    , 81-82 (2005) (state prisoners may use only habeas remedies when they seek to
    invalidate duration of confinement, either directly through injunction compelling
    speedier release or indirectly through judicial determination that necessarily implies
    unlawfulness of state’s custody); Figg v. Russell, 
    433 F.3d 593
    , 597-600 (8th Cir.
    2006) (parole board members are absolutely immune from suit when considering and
    denying parole questions; extending absolute immunity to parole agent where his
    function was so associated with function of parole board that he was also cloaked in
    immunity); cf. Zar v. S.D. Bd. of Exam’rs of Psychologists, 
    976 F.2d 459
    , 464 (8th
    Cir. 1992) (board of examiners itself was not “person” within meaning of § 1983).
    We also agree with the district court that, to the extent Deloria asserted an equal
    protection claim related to his ineligibility for good time credits, he failed to state a
    claim. Cf. Bergee v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 
    608 N.W.2d 636
    , 644 (S.D.
    2000) (inmates’ equal protection rights not violated where prisoners sentenced prior
    to effective date of new parole statute are required to serve out sentences under old
    statute).
    Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the
    District of South Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable
    John E. Simko, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota.
    -2-