Tobey v. Chibucos

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiff-probationer’s section 1983 action alleging that defendants-probation officer and assistant state’s attorney violated his constitutional rights by taking measures to “kidnap” him to Florida, where plaintiff spent 106 days in prison without defendants obtaining court orders to do so. Record showed that at time of alleged incident, plaintiff was serving terms of probation on both Florida and Illinois convictions relating to possession of child pornography, and that plaintiff had not passed “sexual history” polygraphs required under terms of probation and had refused defendant-probation officer’s demand to sign behavioral agreement that added additional rules to plaintiff’s probation. Plaintiff’s claim that he was wrongfully forced to return to Florida was untimely, since he failed to file instant action within two years from date of his release from Florida prison. Moreover, both defendants were entitled to absolute immunity with respect to portion of complaint alleging that defendants either filed unwarranted petitions to revoke or extend his probation or sought to have him comply with existing terms of his probation, since alleged misconduct by both defendants concerned performance of their official acts. Also, Younger doctrine required Dist. Ct. to abstain from taking jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claim that probation officer was continuing to exercise improper supervision of him since plaintiff was essentially asking Dist. Ct. to intervene in ongoing state matter.