M.F. v. State of New York Executive Department Division
640 F.3d 491
2d Cir.2011Background
- MF, a New Jersey offender, pleaded guilty in 2001 to soliciting sex from minors and was placed on five years' probation plus lifetime community supervision with Internet monitoring restrictions.
- New Jersey allowed MF to work and granted work Internet access in 2006, but conditions remained that staff could monitor his computers.
- MF sought to relocate to New York; New Jersey requested New York accept supervision transfer under ICAOS (Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision).
- New York agreed to accept transfer on MF's compliance with special conditions, including notifying employer of conviction and lifetime supervision and allowing Internet monitoring at home and work.
- MF chose not to move to New York due to employer-notification concerns; MF and B.C. (registered domestic partner) sued the New York Division alleging Compact violations and challenging the employer-notification/monitoring conditions.
- District court granted summary judgment for the Division, holding no evidence showed New York would treat a New York offender differently under the Compact; MF and B.C. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Compact creates a private right of action. | MF and B.C. contend the Compact implies a private remedy. | Division argues no private right exists. | Compact creates no express or implied private right of action. |
| Whether MF’s transfer conditions violated the Compact as applied. | Conditions imposed by NY differ from New York offenders. | Conditions are permissible and consistent with in-state treatment. | No private right to challenge conditions under the Compact; district court's analysis stands. |
| Whether the case lies under federal law via the Compact and is justiciable in federal court. | Dispute arises under federal law due to Congress-approved compact. | Factual and legal questions fall under state posture; federal enforcement possible but not private action. | Case arises under federal law; jurisdiction proper. |
| Whether the District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and should have dismissed without prejudice. | Appellants contended jurisdictional issues and remand option. | Not raised below; appropriate to decide on merits. | Not necessary; Court resolves merits that no private right exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975) (factors for implied private rights of action)
- Lindsay v. Ass'n of Prof'l Flight Attendants, 581 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2009) ( Cort factors applied to congressional intent)
- Doe v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 513 F.3d 95 (3d Cir. 2008) (offenders not beneficiaries of the Compact; no private right)
- Hallwood Realty Partners v. Gotham Partners, 286 F.3d 613 (2d Cir. 2002) (implication of private remedies disfavored in regulatory statutes)
- Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979) (private remedies not automatic for statutory violations)