David M. Deloria v. Ed Lightenberg

400 F. App'x 117
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedNovember 4, 2010
Docket10-2358
StatusUnpublished

This text of 400 F. App'x 117 (David M. Deloria v. Ed Lightenberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
David M. Deloria v. Ed Lightenberg, 400 F. App'x 117 (8th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

South Dakota inmate David Deloria appeals the district court’s 1 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, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005) (state prisoners may use only habe-as 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wilkinson v. Dotson
544 U.S. 74 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Bergee v. South Dakota Board of Pardons & Paroles
2000 SD 35 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
400 F. App'x 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-m-deloria-v-ed-lightenberg-ca8-2010.