Roderick Mitchell v. Daniel Stone

Ninth Circuit

Roderick Mitchell v. Daniel Stone

699 F. App'x 719

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 26, 2017

Docket17-15631

StatusUnpublished

This text of 699 F. App'x 719 (Roderick Mitchell v. Daniel Stone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roderick Mitchell v. Daniel Stone, 699 F. App'x 719 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Roderick L. Mitchell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging constitutional violations arising from the imposition of certain parole conditions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Decker v. Advantage Fund Ltd., 362 F.3d 593, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Corp. v. McKinley, 360 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

Dismissal of Roderick’s claim for monetary damages was proper because defendants are entitled to absolute immunity for the imposition of the challenged parole conditions. See Thornton v. Brown, 757 F.3d 834, 840 (9th Cir. 2014) (parole officers are entitled to absolute immunity against claims for damages arising from imposition of parole conditions).

The district court properly dismissed Roderick’s claim for injunctive relief as moot because Roderick is no longer on parole subject to the challenged conditions. See Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 871 (9th Cir. 2002) (“An actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition' is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Roderick L. Mitchell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging constitutional violations arising from the imposition of certain parole conditions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Decker v. Advantage Fund Ltd., 362 F.3d 593, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Corp. v. McKinley, 360 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

Dismissal of Roderick’s claim for monetary damages was proper because defendants are entitled to absolute immunity for the imposition of the challenged parole conditions. See Thornton v. Brown, 757 F.3d 834, 840 (9th Cir. 2014) (parole officers are entitled to absolute immunity against claims for damages arising from imposition of parole conditions).

The district court properly dismissed Roderick’s claim for injunctive relief as moot because Roderick is no longer on parole subject to the challenged conditions. See Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 871 (9th Cir. 2002) (“An actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition' is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

699 F. App'x 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roderick-mitchell-v-daniel-stone-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack