By: Daily Record Staff//December 30, 2010
By: Daily Record Staff//December 30, 2010//
U.S. District Court, Western District of New York
Rights of Parolee — Violations of Parole
Haynes v. Zaporowski
Background: On March 17, the plaintiff commenced this case by filing a complaint that set forth 11 different claims under §1983 against various combinations of the named defendants. All 11 claims ultimately asserted, in one way or another, that the New York State Department of Parole lacked legal authority to enter the plaintiff’s apartment after it cited him for parole violations.
The defendants subsequently made motions to dismiss for insufficient service of process and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On Sept. 15, this court issued a decision that directed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint clarifying why his claims were legally cognizable given the authority of state parole officers to investigate parole violations.
Ruling: The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Oct. 19, that included documents from his state parole violation proceedings. As to the court’s original concern that the defendants acted well within the boundaries of Huntley and Johnson, the plaintiff’s new documentation provides no basis for his apparent argument that a change in parole status strips parole officers of the authority to investigate violations. “Plaintiff’s argument would turn Huntley on its head by declaring, in essence, that parole officers could allege violations but not substantiate them,” observed Judge Arcara. Further, the plaintiff was only under investigation for parole violations at the time of the searches, and thus the searches were lawful under Huntley. On this basis alone, the court finds that the plaintiff does not have any cognizable claim and that this case must be dismissed.
Timmie L. Haynes, plaintiff pro se; David Joseph State, assistant New York attorney general, for the defendants