Linares v. Annucci, 710 F. App'x 467

Plaintiff Jorge Linares, a New York state prisoner proceeding pro se in forma pauperis, filed a putative class action challenging New York's parole scheme as violating the Due Process Clause by vesting "standardless and unfettered discretion" in the Board of Parole.
Linares alleged classwide injury (prisoners denied parole or soon to be eligible) but did not allege he himself had been denied parole or describe any individual parole hearing.
The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim, relying on precedents holding New York prisoners have no protected liberty interest in parole and concluding Linares raised only a statutory/regulatory challenge, not an individualized arbitrary-denial claim.
On appeal Linares argued (1) recent amendments to New York's parole statutes created a due-process right to parole, and (2) the district court should have given him leave to amend to raise an individualized arbitrary-denial claim.
The Second Circuit vacated and remanded: it found the parole-amendment argument was not raised below (so district court had no occasion to consider it) but could possibly state a claim, and therefore ordered service and further proceedings so the district court can address the statutory-change issue and whether leave to amend should be allowed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether recent amendments to NY parole law create a protected due-process liberty interest in parole	Linares: statutory amendments altered prior law and now create a liberty interest that subjects parole denials to due-process protection	Defendants: prior controlling precedent holds NY scheme creates no legitimate expectancy of release; district court relied on that precedent	Court: Declined to decide on merits; vacated and remanded so district court can consider amendments after defendants are served
Whether sua sponte dismissal under §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) was proper without service or leave to amend	Linares: dismissal was premature; he should get chance to amend and to litigate statutory-change claim	Defendants: dismissal appropriate because complaint alleged only classwide statutory/regulatory attack and lacked an individualized arbitrary-denial claim	Court: Sua sponte dismissal disfavored; remanded for service and further proceedings; however, district court did not abuse discretion in declining leave to amend originally because complaint lacked factual allegations about an individual denial

Graziano v. Pataki, 689 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.) (prior holding that NY parole scheme does not create a protected expectancy of release)
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) (framework for parole and due-process expectations)
Barna v. Travis, 239 F.3d 169 (2d Cir.) (parole expectancy jurisprudence)
Boothe v. Hammock, 605 F.2d 661 (2d Cir.) (parole-related liberty-interest precedent)
Moorish Science Temple of Am., Inc. v. Smith, 693 F.2d 987 (2d Cir.) (disfavored practice of sua sponte dismissal of pro se complaints without service)
Benitez v. Wolff, 907 F.2d 1293 (2d Cir.) (limitations on sua sponte dismissal prior to service)
Dolan v. Connolly, 794 F.3d 290 (2d Cir.) (pro se complaints should be given leave to amend when a valid claim might be stated)
Milan v. Wertheimer, 808 F.3d 961 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for §1915(e)(2)(B) dismissals)