Randall Lamont Rolle v. Nicole Raysor

Eleventh Circuit

Randall Lamont Rolle v. Nicole Raysor

267 F. App'x 925

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedMarch 7, 2008

Docket07-14555

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 267 F. App'x 925 (Randall Lamont Rolle v. Nicole Raysor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Randall Lamont Rolle v. Nicole Raysor, 267 F. App'x 925 (11th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Randall Rolle appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court concluded that Rolle’s allegations that his constitutional rights were violated during a state probation revocation proceeding failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

Rolle’s complaint fails on several grounds. The central premise of Rolle’s complaint that his probation revocation is

*926 invalid fails because, under Heck v. Humphrey, a state prisoner cannot “seek[] damages in a § 1983 suit” when judgment in his favor “would necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction or sentence.” 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2372, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Rolle’s complaint that his federal rights were violated by the agents of the Florida Department of Corrections, the Law Office of Frank Sheffield, the Florida State Attorney’s Office, the Florida Second Judicial Circuit, the Florida Office of the Attorney General, and the Florida First District Court of Appeals fails because there is no respondeat superior liability available under section 1983. Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir.2003). Rolle’s complaint against the Florida agencies and their officers also fails because these state entities are not “persons” within the meaning of section 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2312, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). Rolle’s complaint against Judge Richard L. Hood, Judge Thomas Howell Bateman III, Judge Richard W. Ervin, Judge Peter D. Webster, and Judge Paul Mahlon Hawkes fails because those judges are entitled to absolute immunity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 1105, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978). Prosecutor John Joseph Maceluch Jr., Assistant Attorney General Sherrie Rollinson, probation officer Nicole Raysor, and Raysor’s supervisor, Brian Engles, are also immune from Rolle’s complaint. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427-28, 96 S.Ct. 984, 993-94, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976); Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F.2d 1489, 1490 (11th Cir. 1984). Rolle’s complaint against Lilia Dandelake, who represented Rolle in his probation revocation proceeding, fails because a defense attorney is not a state actor under section 1983. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325, 102 S.Ct. 445, 453, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981).

The dismissal of Rolle’s complaint is AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Randall Rolle appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court concluded that Rolle’s allegations that his constitutional rights were violated during a state probation revocation proceeding failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

Rolle’s complaint fails on several grounds. The central premise of Rolle’s complaint that his probation revocation is

*926 invalid fails because, under Heck v. Humphrey, a state prisoner cannot “seek[] damages in a § 1983 suit” when judgment in his favor “would necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction or sentence.” 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 2372, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Rolle’s complaint that his federal rights were violated by the agents of the Florida Department of Corrections, the Law Office of Frank Sheffield, the Florida State Attorney’s Office, the Florida Second Judicial Circuit, the Florida Office of the Attorney General, and the Florida First District Court of Appeals fails because there is no respondeat superior liability available under section 1983. Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir.2003). Rolle’s complaint against the Florida agencies and their officers also fails because these state entities are not “persons” within the meaning of section 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2312, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). Rolle’s complaint against Judge Richard L. Hood, Judge Thomas Howell Bateman III, Judge Richard W. Ervin, Judge Peter D. Webster, and Judge Paul Mahlon Hawkes fails because those judges are entitled to absolute immunity. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 1105, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978). Prosecutor John Joseph Maceluch Jr., Assistant Attorney General Sherrie Rollinson, probation officer Nicole Raysor, and Raysor’s supervisor, Brian Engles, are also immune from Rolle’s complaint. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427-28, 96 S.Ct. 984, 993-94, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976); Hughes v. Chesser, 731 F.2d 1489, 1490 (11th Cir. 1984). Rolle’s complaint against Lilia Dandelake, who represented Rolle in his probation revocation proceeding, fails because a defense attorney is not a state actor under section 1983. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325, 102 S.Ct. 445, 453, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981).

The dismissal of Rolle’s complaint is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 F. App'x 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randall-lamont-rolle-v-nicole-raysor-ca11-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack