NCJ Number
79209
Journal
Tulsa Law Journal Volume: 16 Dated: (Winter 1980) Pages: 229-251
Date Published
1980
Length
23 pages
Annotation
This note traces the development of official immunity in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Martinez v. California and similar decisions that have criticized the application of that doctrine to State parole officials.
Abstract
After Martinez, States may continue to immunize their parole officials from causes of actions based on State law that are generated by decisions to parole prisoners who later kill or injure other persons. Nevertheless, the Court qualified its ruling by intimating that actions brought under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act may preclude State official immunity, even though such immunity would otherwise be effective against State law actions. This recharacterization of section 1983 may allow victims of crime commited by parolees to seek Federal statutory redress against State parole officials. Developments in mental patient release litigation with regard to the increasing legal duties of psychotherapists may be applied with predictable effectiveness in the context of parole decisions, where many similar considerations are involved. In jurisdictions retaining the doctrine of official immunity for parole officials, plaintiffs should consider the possibility of seeking redress through section 1983 actions, Such actions may be advantageous because official immunity may be completely precluded once the elements of section 1983 are affirmatively established. Finally, the gap in official immunity opened by Martinez may ultimately improve parole decisionmaking. A total of 127 footnotes are included.