Graziano v. Pataki
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16147
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs are a class of New York state prisoners convicted of A‑1 violent felonies who allege an unwritten policy to deny parole to violent offenders regardless of rehabilitation or other statutorily mandated factors.
- Plaintiffs claim this unofficial policy caused a sustained drop in parole release rates for violent offenders from 28% (1993–94) to as low as 3% (2000–01).
- New York parole decisions are governed by Executive Law § 259(i), which requires consideration of eight statutory factors; the Board’s parole release decision remains discretionary.
- Plaintiffs asserted the Governor fostered an unwritten policy to deny parole solely based on the violent nature of offenses and to ignore proper statutory criteria.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(c); the Second Circuit reviews de novo and asks whether the complaint plausibly states a claim.
- The court held that the alleged policy did not violate due process, equal protection, or the Ex Post Facto Clause, and affirmed the dismissal (with a separate dissent addressing substantive due process).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the alleged unofficial policy violates due process | Graziano argues policy denied parole for arbitrary impermissible reasons | Pataki/ Dennison contend no liberty interest; Board may weigh statutory factors | No due process violation; no protected liberty interest in parole under NY scheme |
| Whether the alleged unofficial policy violates equal protection | Graziano claims disparate treatment of violent offenders | Pataki/ Dennison claim rational basis for distinguishing violent vs nonviolent offenders | No equal protection violation; rational basis related to public safety |
| Whether the policy raises an Ex Post Facto issue | Policy would convert indeterminate sentences into life without parole retroactively | Policy does not create a law; changes to guidelines do not trigger Ex Post Facto | Ex Post Facto claim foreclosed; not a 'law within meaning' of clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Barna v. Travis, 239 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2001) (prisoners have no liberty interest in parole; due process limits)
- Mathie v. Dennison, 381 Fed.Appx. 26 (2d Cir. 2010) (parole guidelines are not automatic; discretion allowed; state-law claims not federal)
- Silmon v. Travis, 95 N.Y.2d 470 (N.Y. 2000) (statutory factors must be considered; discretion permitted)
- King v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, 83 N.Y.2d 788 (N.Y. 1994) (Board may consider but not required to discuss every guideline explicitly)
- Rodriguez v. Greenfield, 7 Fed.Appx. 42 (2d Cir. 2001) (parole decisions missing required records may raise due process concerns)
- Local 342, Long Island Pub. Ser. Emp. v. Town Bd. of Huntington, 31 F.3d 1191 (2d Cir. 1994) (judicial restraint in evaluating substantive due process claims)
- Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1998) (conscience-shocking standard for substantive due process)
- Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1981) (Ex Post Facto analysis for retroactive penal provisions)