William Thornton v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3034
9th Cir.2014Background
- William Thornton, a California parolee, challenged two parole conditions (a GPS electronic-monitoring requirement and a residency restriction) in a § 1983 action seeking injunctive and monetary relief.
- The CDCR imposed those conditions: the GPS requirement under its discretionary authority and the residency restriction pursuant to California Penal Code §3003.5(b) as interpreted to allow individualized conditions.
- The district court dismissed Thornton’s § 1983 complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding habeas corpus was the exclusive remedy under Preiser/Heck doctrines because Thornton was "in custody."
- The Ninth Circuit panel (Graber, J.) reversed as to the availability of § 1983 for Thornton’s injunctive claims, holding that success would not necessarily imply the invalidity of Thornton’s conviction or shorten his parole.
- Judge O’Scannlain (joined by four judges) dissented from denial of rehearing en banc on federalism and practical grounds; Judge Ikuta dissented in a separate opinion, arguing California law makes parole conditions part of the sentence and thus exclusively cognizable via habeas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a state parolee may challenge discretionary parole conditions under § 1983 instead of habeas | Thornton: his challenge targets conditions (GPS and residency) not the fact or duration of parole, so § 1983 is available | CDCR: parolees are "in custody" and challenges to parole conditions that are part of the sentence must proceed in habeas | Reversed: § 1983 available where success would neither shorten parole nor necessarily imply invalidity of conviction or sentence |
| Application of Heck/Preiser to parole-condition challenges | Thornton: Heck/Preiser bar claims only when success would necessarily imply invalidity of conviction/sentence or speedier release | CDCR: enjoining these conditions would effectively attack the sentence and thus falls within Preiser/Heck | Held: Preiser/Heck do not bar this suit because relief would not alter the underlying judgment or duration of confinement |
| Immunity of defendants for damages and injunctive relief | Thornton: seeks damages and injunctive relief against officials | Defendants: Eleventh Amendment, state-actor immunity, and absolute immunity for parole-officer decisions | Held: Eleventh Amendment bars damages against state in official capacity; parole officers absolutely immune for imposition of conditions (quasi-judicial) but not for discriminatory enforcement; injunctive relief allowed |
| Whether Ninth Circuit’s rule conflicts with Seventh Circuit precedent | Thornton: § 1983 suits permissible here because conditions were discretionary administrative actions, not part of court sentence | CDCR/Ikuta: Seventh Circuit (Drollinger/Williams) treats parole/probation conditions as confinement and requires habeas | Held: Ninth Circuit declines to follow Seventh Circuit on these facts, distinguishing cases where conditions were part of a court-imposed sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas is the traditional remedy for attacks on the core fact or duration of confinement)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§ 1983 claim barred if success would necessarily imply invalidity of conviction or sentence)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (Preiser/Heck bar only when relief would speedier release or necessarily imply invalidity of conviction)
- Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963) (parolees are “in custody” for habeas purposes)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (parole involves restraints tied to conviction and sentence; parolee expectations of liberty are limited)
- Drollinger v. Milligan, 552 F.2d 1220 (7th Cir. 1977) (probation-condition challenge treated as attack on sentence; habeas remedy required)
- Williams v. Wisconsin, 336 F.3d 576 (7th Cir. 2003) (applied Drollinger to parole; suggested Preiser may bar § 1983 challenges to parole conditions)