McQuillion

McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger

Good Law
369 F.3d 1091·2004 WL 1109496
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 19, 2004No. 01-16037California3,261 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Goodwin, J.

Carl McQuillion (“McQuillion”) and his co-plaintiffs (“co-plaintiffs”) appeal the dismissal of their civil rights complaint against the Board of Prison Terms (the “Board”) and the Governor of California, inter alia, for allegedly administering California’s parole statutes to achieve an unwritten, unconstitutional policy of denying parole to inmates convicted of certain offenses. We affirm.

I.

In 1979, following a 1973 conviction for murder, the Community Release Board, as the Board was named at the time, found McQuillion suitable for parole. The Board moved up his parole date at six hearings over fifteen years. But in 1994, sitting en banc, the Board reversed the 1979 parole suitability determination. 1 In 1996, before commencing the present action, McQuillion filed a complaint (“1996 complaint”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against members of the Board, alleging that the Board had rescinded his parole date to further then Governor Wilson’s policy of denying parole to inmates convicted of murder. He sought monetary damages as well as in-junctive and declaratory relief.

In September 1996, the district court dismissed the claim for damages, ruling that parole board members are entitled…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.