Paul Knoll v. Gary L. Webster, in His Private and Personal Capacity, (Chairman Utah Parole Board)
Cases that cite this one
35 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Thompson v. Archuleta (District Court, D. Utah 2024)
- Thompson v. Archuleta (District Court, D. Utah 2024)
- Wood v. State of Utah (District Court, D. Utah 2025)
- Blankenship v. Stitt (United States District Court, Oklahoma Western 2024)
- Richard Martinez v. New Mexico Parole Board Dareld L. Kerby, Warden (10th Cir. 1993)
- Chester Russ v. Paul Uppah, Rod Cozzetto, and John R. Enright (10th Cir. 1992)
- Barney v. Utah Board of Pardons (District Court, D. Utah 2025)
- Wood v. State of Utah (District Court, D. Utah 2025)
- Colucci v. Rose (District Court, D. Utah 2025)
- Long v. Colorado Parole (Colo. App. 2025)
- Thompson v. Archuleta (District Court, D. Utah 2024)
- Wach v. Cochran (10th Cir. 2023)
- Brown v. Hill (District Court, D. Utah 2023)
- Sedillo v. State of New Mexico Adult Parole Board (District Court, D. New Mexico 2022)
- Wach v. Varoz (District Court, D. Utah 2022)
- Herrera v. Cochran (District Court, D. Utah 2022)
- Wach v. Varoz (District Court, D. Utah 2022)
- Herrera v. Herbert (District Court, D. Utah 2021)
- Milligan v. GEO Corrections and Detentions (District Court, D. New Mexico 2019)
- Rudolph v. Hanson (10th Cir. 2018)
- O'Neill v. King (10th Cir. 2016)
- Giese v. Scafe (10th Cir. 2005)
- Gillette v. New Mexico Parole Board (10th Cir. 2002)
- Moore v. Gunnison Valley Hospital (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 2001)
- Wilson v. Oklahoma Dept of Cor (10th Cir. 2000)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument *451 would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R. App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.8(c) and 27.1.-2. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
The plaintiff appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit against the defendant, who is a member of the Utah Board of Pardons. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, who was responsible for determining the plaintiff’s release date, violated the provision of the Eighth Amendment that prohibits the imposition of excessive fines. The district court concluded that the defendant was immune from liability under § 1983 and dismissed the action. The district court also imposed a ten dollar sanction on the plaintiff “to deter further abuse of process.” On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the defendant is not immune and that the ten dollar fine is “wrong.”
We conclude that as a member of the Board of Pardons, the defendant is absolutely immune from damages liability for actions taken in performance of the Board’s official duties regarding the granting or denying of parole. Accord Johnson v. Rhode Island Parole Bd. Members, 815 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1987); Evans v. Dillahunty, 711 F.2d 828, 830-31 (8th Cir. 1983); United States ex rel. Powell v. Irving, 684 F.2d 494, 496-97 (7th Cir. 1982); Sellars v. Procunier, 641 F.2d 1295, 1303 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1102, 102 S.Ct. 678, 70 L.Ed.2d 644 (1981); Thompson v. Burke, 556 F.2d 231, 236 (3d Cir. 1977); Pope v. Chew, 521 F.2d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 1975). Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed the plaintiff’s action.
Moreover, the district court’s imposition of a ten dollar sanction was proper. The plaintiff admits that the present case raises issues virtually identical to those he raised in three previously dismissed actions. Thus, the record supports the district court’s conclusion that the plaintiff needed to be deterred from further abuse of process. Cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11; Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Hand, 763 F.2d 1184 (10th Cir. 1985).
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Utah is AFFIRMED.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.