High v. Scott, et al

No. 99-20359
-1-
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20359
Summary Calendar
JED BAXTER HIGH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE;
BOARD MEMBERS TDCJ-ID; VICTOR RODRIQUEZ;
BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES; WACKENHUT INC.;
PRESIDENT OF WACKENHUT, INC.
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-97-CV-4081
--------------------
March 15, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jed Baxter High, Texas prisoner # 320528, appeals from the
summary-judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against
Wayne Scott, the members of Texas’s Board of Pardons and Paroles,
the members of Texas’s Board of Criminal Justice and Wackenhut,
Inc., and its president. High’s action was predicated upon
alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
the Rehabilitation Act (RA), and the Equal Protection and Due
Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, he

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-20359
-2-
alleged that his rights under these provisions are violated when
the Board of Criminal Justice adopted a policy which excludes
disabled parole violators from consideration for placement in
Intermediate Sanction Facilities (ISFs). High argues that the
district court erred in several respects, including that it
erroneously dismissed his claims against defendant Scott, that it
incorrectly determined that he had failed to demonstrate a
violation of the ADA or the RA, and that it failed to adjudicate
his claims against all the defendants.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the
same standards as did the district court. Amburgey v. Corhart
Refractories Corp., 936 F.2d 805, 809 (5th Cir. 1991).
This action is, at bottom, a challenge to the validity of
High’s confinement resulting from the parole board’s decision to
revoke his mandatory supervision. Inasmuch as High does not
allege that this decision has been overturned, expunged, or
otherwise called into question, it is barred by the principle of
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See id. at 486-87; see
also Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding
that Heck extends to parole revocation hearings). Accordingly,
the dismissal of this action is affirmed. See Sojourner T. v.
Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992) (this court can affirm a
district court's judgment on any grounds supported by the
summary-judgment record).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --