Unpublished Disposition, 928 F.2d 1138 (9th Cir. 1991)
Annotate this CaseFelder Ulysses YOUNG, Jr, III, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Dr. BYLUND, Psychiatrist; Lompoc Psychological Department;Mr. Boyce, caseworker, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 89-55836.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 11, 1990.* Decided March 25, 1991.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; No. CV-87-2177-AAH, A. Andrew Hauk, District Judge, Presiding.
C.D. Cal.
AFFIRMED.
Before POOLE, CANBY and DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Felder Young appeals the district court's dismissal of his second amended complaint with prejudice. Young brought a Bivens action against two United States Bureau of Prisons employees, Dr. Bylund, a psychiatrist, and Mr. Boyce, a caseworker, alleging that the defendants wrote a false and defamatory report which caused the Parole Commission to deny Young parole. Young seeks twenty million dollars in damages and immediate release. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, adopting the magistrate's findings that: (1) Young had no constitutionally protectable interest in obtaining parole; (2) Dr. Bylund's report, even if defamatory, did not violate Young's constitutional rights; (3) Young failed to allege facts supporting the conclusion that the defendants were directly or indirectly responsible for any constitutional violations; and (4) Young must exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing a Bivens action. We affirm.
DISCUSSION
We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6). Kruso v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 3217 (1990). We may affirm on any ground fairly supported by the record. Lee v. United States, 809 F.2d 1406, 1408 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1041 (1988).
We agree that Young failed to allege facts supporting the conclusion that the defendants were directly or indirectly responsible for the Parole Commission's decision to deny parole. Dr. Byland and Mr. Boyce neither participated in the parole decision nor caused the parole commission to deny his parole. See Johnson v. Duffey, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Although the Parole Commission is authorized to consider recommendations from caseworkers and psychologists, these recommendations do not bind the Parole Commission to grant or deny parole. 18 U.S.C. § 4207 (1985) (repealed 1984).
Apart from the parole decision, reports by Dr. Byland and Mr. Boyce violate no constitutional rights of Young, even if the reports were defamatory. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S, 693 (1976).
The district court did not err in dismissing the complaint and the entire action with prejudice.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4. Young's request for oral argument is denied
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir.R. 36-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
