The following update on the long-running Graziano case, which aimed to restore justice and fairness to the parole hearings of inmates convicted of violent felonies, is given by the Prison Action Network.
'Lawyers who worked pro bono for years on the case have finally conceded defeat. "We were denied en banc review. It seems that we lost this case. We tried and are disappointed in the loss," reported Peter Sell, who with Robert Isseks made up the legal team.'
Showing posts with label George Pataki. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Pataki. Show all posts
December 17, 2012
August 05, 2012
Graziano v. Pataki decision: August 3 2012
A decision in the Graziano v. Pataki class action case:
A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that violent felons who claim they were systematically denied parole due to an unofficial mandate of former Governor George Pataki have no avenue of relief under the U.S. Constitution.
From the court's decision (Graziano v. Pataki, No. 11-116):
"Plaintiffs - Appellants Peter Graziano, James Buckley, Mark Malone, Robert A. Harris, William Walker, Aaron Talley, Maurice Murrell, Steven Ho, and Brian Jacques (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed this class action against Defendants - Appellees George Pataki, the Governor of the State of New York; Robert Dennison, the Chairman of the New York State Division of Parole; and the New York State Division of Parole (collectively, "Defendants") on behalf of themselves and all other New York State prisoners convicted of violent felony offenses. Plaintiffs allege that they have been denied parole as a result of an "unwritten policy" to deny parole to violent felony offenders, and that this unofficial policy violates three provisions of the federal constitution: (1) the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) the Ex Post Facto Clause. Because we conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for violation of their rights under any of these provisions, we affirm the December 10, 2010 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure."
Robert Isseks, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he would petition for the decision to be reviewed by the full panel of circuit judges.
See the following, especially the dissenting opinion given by Stefan R. Underhill, District Judge:
Graziano v. Pataki, No. 11-116 (2d Cir. August 3 2012)
Circuit Rejects Inmates' Bid for Relief Over Alleged Parole Policy, by John Caher. (New York Law Journal, August 6 2012)
New York violent felony inmates lose parole case appeal (Reuters, New York, August 6 2012)
Graziano v. Pataki, Justia.com Opinion Summary (August 3 2012)
Graziano v. Pataki, 11-116 (FindLaw, August 3 2012)
Split Second Circuit panel rejects varied constitutional attacks on NY parole practices (Sentencing Law and Policy, August 3 2012)
A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that violent felons who claim they were systematically denied parole due to an unofficial mandate of former Governor George Pataki have no avenue of relief under the U.S. Constitution.
From the court's decision (Graziano v. Pataki, No. 11-116):
"Plaintiffs - Appellants Peter Graziano, James Buckley, Mark Malone, Robert A. Harris, William Walker, Aaron Talley, Maurice Murrell, Steven Ho, and Brian Jacques (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed this class action against Defendants - Appellees George Pataki, the Governor of the State of New York; Robert Dennison, the Chairman of the New York State Division of Parole; and the New York State Division of Parole (collectively, "Defendants") on behalf of themselves and all other New York State prisoners convicted of violent felony offenses. Plaintiffs allege that they have been denied parole as a result of an "unwritten policy" to deny parole to violent felony offenders, and that this unofficial policy violates three provisions of the federal constitution: (1) the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) the Ex Post Facto Clause. Because we conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for violation of their rights under any of these provisions, we affirm the December 10, 2010 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure."
Robert Isseks, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he would petition for the decision to be reviewed by the full panel of circuit judges.
See the following, especially the dissenting opinion given by Stefan R. Underhill, District Judge:
Graziano v. Pataki, No. 11-116 (2d Cir. August 3 2012)
Circuit Rejects Inmates' Bid for Relief Over Alleged Parole Policy, by John Caher. (New York Law Journal, August 6 2012)
New York violent felony inmates lose parole case appeal (Reuters, New York, August 6 2012)
Graziano v. Pataki, Justia.com Opinion Summary (August 3 2012)
Graziano v. Pataki, 11-116 (FindLaw, August 3 2012)
Split Second Circuit panel rejects varied constitutional attacks on NY parole practices (Sentencing Law and Policy, August 3 2012)
July 01, 2009
Graziano v. Pataki update: July 1st 2009
Brief update on Graziano v. Pataki, from the Prison Action Network:
"GRAZIANO VS PATAKI: The lawyers for Graziano submitted written questions to Pataki; his responses are not due for another three weeks or so."
"GRAZIANO VS PATAKI: The lawyers for Graziano submitted written questions to Pataki; his responses are not due for another three weeks or so."
May 01, 2009
Graziano v. Pataki update: May 1st 2009
Update on Graziano v. Pataki, from the Prison Action Network:
"GRAZIANO VS PATAKI: The Judge has denied the Plaintiffs’ (Graziano et.al) motion to compel the deposition of the Defendant, former NYS governor George E. Pataki, citing immunity for high ranking officials, which protects them from “unnecessary probing of the officials’ thought processes”, and such depositions would “likely discourage individuals from public service positions”. Justice Seibel also stated in her decision that “Pataki has offered to answer written interrogatories, and such a procedure is a reasonable middle ground.” Case 7:06-cv-00480-CS Document 121, Filed 4/27/2009."
"GRAZIANO VS PATAKI: The Judge has denied the Plaintiffs’ (Graziano et.al) motion to compel the deposition of the Defendant, former NYS governor George E. Pataki, citing immunity for high ranking officials, which protects them from “unnecessary probing of the officials’ thought processes”, and such depositions would “likely discourage individuals from public service positions”. Justice Seibel also stated in her decision that “Pataki has offered to answer written interrogatories, and such a procedure is a reasonable middle ground.” Case 7:06-cv-00480-CS Document 121, Filed 4/27/2009."
February 16, 2009
George Pataki denies having a secret policy to deny the release of violent offenders by focusing on the severity of their crimes
In a letter to Judge Cathy Seibel, former Governor of NYS George Pataki has denied having a secret policy to deny the release of violent offenders by focusing on the severity of their crimes at their parole hearings.
"I never directed the Parole Board, nor did I instruct any member of my staff to direct the Parole Board to deny parole to any individual or group of inmates."
Lawyers for the inmates in the Graziano v. Pataki federal civil rights class action case accuse the Pataki administration of unconstitutionally rejecting parole for violent offenders to advance the administration's political and economic agendas.
Full story by Thomas Zambito in the NY Daily News
"I never directed the Parole Board, nor did I instruct any member of my staff to direct the Parole Board to deny parole to any individual or group of inmates."
Lawyers for the inmates in the Graziano v. Pataki federal civil rights class action case accuse the Pataki administration of unconstitutionally rejecting parole for violent offenders to advance the administration's political and economic agendas.
Full story by Thomas Zambito in the NY Daily News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)