Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Farland v. Wall

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

March 12, 2015

LEO G. FARLAND, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN WALL, Defendant

Leo G Farland, Plaintiff, Pro se, Gardner, MA.

For John Wall, Chairman of Massachusetts Parole Board, Defendant: Kris C. Foster, LEAD ATTORNEY, Attorney General's Office, Boston, MA.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE.

Background

Leo G. Farland (" Farland" ), proceeding pro se, has filed suit against John Wall, Chairman of the Massachusetts Parole Board (" Wall" ) and the Massachusetts Parole

Page 75

Board (" Board" )[1] pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights by revoking his parole without providing him a fair and proper final revocation hearing. This Order addresses Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Complaint (Docket No. 9), the Motion For Leave To Amend Complaint In Part, i.e., Relief Requested (Docket No. 11), the Motion For The Courts Acceptance Of Exhibits In Support Of Complaint And Memorandum Of Law (Docket No. 14) and Motion Requesting The Court To Take Action And Respond To The Complaint Or. Grant Notice Of Voluntary Dismissal (Docket No. 21).

Farland's motion to amend his complaint, which was filed within 21 days of the filing of Wall's motion to dismiss is allowed. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B)(plaintiff may amend complaint once as matter of course within twenty-one (21) days after service of responsive pleading).[2] His motion to file the exhibits referred to in his amended complaint is also allowed. For the reasons set forth below, Wall's motion to dismiss is allowed. Accordingly, Farland's motion to requesting the court take action or voluntarily dismiss his complaint is denied, as moot.

Facts

The following facts relevant to Wall's motion to dismiss are taken from Farland's amended complaint.

On October 5, 2005, Farland was released on parole after being incarcerated for more than thirty-one years on his conviction for second degree murder. On October 24, 2007, the Board imposed two additional special conditions of parole on Farland: he was to have no unsupervised contact with any child under 16 years old, and was to be subjected to random polygraph tests. On August 16, 2010, Farland was arrested, without incident, at his residence by the Haverhill Police Department and charged with two counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of 14 and violating the special parole condition that he have no unsupervised contact with a minor under the age of 16. Farland was incarcerated at MCI Cedar Junction.

On August 23, 2010, Farland's parole was provisionally revoked. His final revocation hearing was continued until after resolution of the criminal charges. On October 9, 2012, a nolle prosequi was entered as to the criminal charges after the assistant district attorney determined that it was in the best interest of the alleged victim not to proceed with the prosecution. The Commonwealth has not pursued the criminal charges and appears unlikely to do so.

On October 20, 2012, Farland sent a letter to the Board requesting that a final revocation hearing be held or he be released. On December 18, 2012, Farland received an " Offender Hearing Notice" setting a hearing date for sometime in January 2013. More specifically, the notice stated that a final revocation hearing would be held on January 2, 2013, at NCCI-Gardner (where Farland was apparently being held). The notice indicated that the alleged offenses to be considered were an ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.