×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
NJ Prisoner's § 1983 Action Against Parole Board and Its Agents Dismissed as Incognizable
NJ Prisoner's § 1983 Action Against Parole Board and Its Agents Dismissed
as Incognizable
In 1997, John Williams was a New Jersey state parolee. His parole officer
arrested him for changing jobs without permission and not registering as a
sex-offender. Two Parole Board (Board) members revoked his parole and he
went back to prison. In 1998, two different Board members denied
him parole based on a psychologist's report. In 2001, Williams filed a
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal district court. He
alleged false arrest by his parole officer, failure to adequately
investigate whether he would reoffend if paroled by the Board members, and
providing false information by the psychologist. The district court
dismissed, and Williams appealed.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit found that
prisoners cannot challenge the fact of their incarceration under § 1983.
Rather, they must make such a challenge in a state or federal collateral
attack. Since this action, if successful, would render Williams'
confinement invalid, the parole officer and Board members couldn't be sued
under § 1983. The Court also held that the Board members, and the
psychologist as their agent, had absolute immunity with respect to
investigations made to determine prisoners' propriety for parole. Thus, the
Court affirmed the district court in all respects. See: Williams v.
Consovoy et al., 3rd Cir No. 04-3569 (2006).
as Incognizable
In 1997, John Williams was a New Jersey state parolee. His parole officer
arrested him for changing jobs without permission and not registering as a
sex-offender. Two Parole Board (Board) members revoked his parole and he
went back to prison. In 1998, two different Board members denied
him parole based on a psychologist's report. In 2001, Williams filed a
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal district court. He
alleged false arrest by his parole officer, failure to adequately
investigate whether he would reoffend if paroled by the Board members, and
providing false information by the psychologist. The district court
dismissed, and Williams appealed.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit found that
prisoners cannot challenge the fact of their incarceration under § 1983.
Rather, they must make such a challenge in a state or federal collateral
attack. Since this action, if successful, would render Williams'
confinement invalid, the parole officer and Board members couldn't be sued
under § 1983. The Court also held that the Board members, and the
psychologist as their agent, had absolute immunity with respect to
investigations made to determine prisoners' propriety for parole. Thus, the
Court affirmed the district court in all respects. See: Williams v.
Consovoy et al., 3rd Cir No. 04-3569 (2006).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Williams v. Consovoy et al.
| Year | 2006 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 3rd Cir No. 04-3569 (2006). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |