Building Bridges - January 2013 edition

The January edition of Building Bridges has been issued by the Prison Action Network.

Their brief summary is given below. Please see Building Bridges for full details and ways to help.

1. Violence against women in prison.

2. End the Stigma/Expand Opportunities Campaign kicks off with screening of "The Long Shadow of Incarceration's Stigma".

3. Misconception, an article by an incarcerated columnist, says prisoners are not the violent animals the press would have us believe.

4. New Jim Crow Forum presentation in Brooklyn. Senator Eric Adams, Chris Johnson, Glenn Martin, Jason Meyers and parishioners at St. Mary's Episcopal Church Harlem will be speaking.

5. The Parole Reform Campaign hopes you will sign their pledge and give your suggestions.

6. Parole News - November and December releases include Peter Graziano; look for 2012 summary in February issue; comments from a parole applicant; claim that State parole violation rules have been eased.

One of the above December releases was Peter Graziano, a well known name throughout the NYS prison system as the lead plaintiff in Graziano et.al. Although the case was lost, many of the 'et.al' have been released, and now in January Mr. Graziano will also be going home. It was his seventh hearing. He thanks everyone who supported the lawsuit over the years.

Parole Revocation Barred for Defendant Unfit to Stand Trial
The above titled article by John Caher published in the New York Law Journal on January 2 2013 reports that the Appellate Division, First Department, has held in Matter of Lopez v. Evans, 2012 NY Slip Op 09188 that a parolee found mentally incompetent to stand trial on new charges is also unfit to proceed with a parole revocation hearing. Based on the same conduct that led to the charges, Lopez's parole was revoked by an administrative panel that found "mental illness is not an excuse for a parole violation".

7. Commissioner Brian Fischer's testimony on Educational and Vocational Programs in Prison (November 29 2012).

8. Reentry.net/NY calendar lists events and meetings in your area on issues you may care about.

9. Supportive Housing is in trouble.

10. Tribute Dinner to family members of political prisoners and prisoners of war.

11. Yale Law Journal announces winners - four New Yorkers are among them.

Update on the Graziano v. Pataki case, December 2012

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.'

A brief overview of the Graziano v. Pataki case

A brief overview of the Graziano v. Pataki case, given by the Prison Action Network:

In January 2006, a Class Action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of NY, alleging that the Pataki administration's policy/practice of denying parole to prisoners serving indeterminate sentences (1) for convictions of Class A-1 offenses with (2) sentences of less than 25-Life, the statutory maximum term of imprisonment, and currently serving such sentences; (3) have served the minimum terms of their indeterminate sentences and are therefore eligible for parole release; and (4) have had their most recent applications for parole release denied by the Parole Board solely because of the "seriousness of the offense", the "nature of the present offense", or words to that effect, without due regard to any factor other than the violent nature of their present offenses, violates the Class members' rights to due process of law and equal protection of laws under the 14th amendment to the US Constitution, and whether such policy/practice violates their rights to be free from an ex post facto enhancement of the punishments under the US Constitution, Article 1, §1.

In March of 2006, a First Amendment complaint was filed to include A1 felons who received the maximum indeterminate sentence of 25 years to Life who meet the same defining factors of the main Class.

In April of 2006, the State filed an answer requesting the court to dismiss the action for a failure to state a course of action. The Class filed an opposition.

On July 17, 2006, the Honorable Judge Charles Brieant denied the State's motion to dismiss the complaint as to all claims. (2006 lib 2023082.)

In May of 2007, the State filed a second motion to dismiss the amended complaint, submitting the Class's claims are moot because Pataki left office in 2006 and the new governor Eliot Spitzer, along with a new Parole Chairman, George Alexander, would not follow Pataki's alleged policy. The Class filed an opposition in May of 2007. In December of 2007, Judge Brieant denied the State's moot argument, stating: "the change of office does not necessarily mean the policy or practice of the Parole Board would not be repeated". Judge Brieant also granted Class certification, instructing the State to settle the case. In early November of 2007, after months of settlement discussions, the State agreed to terms of a settlement. On Nov. 15, 2007, then Senate Majority leader Joseph Bruno and his cronies likened a settlement in the inmate parole suit to a "get out of jail free card" and persuaded Spitzer to continue fighting the suit. Senate hearings were conducted asking Spitzer why he had let out 56 violent felons. In March of 2008, we had the Spitzer sex scandal.

On July 22, 2008, the NY Law Journal announced that Judge Brieant, who had served on the bench for 37 years and who was appointed by President Nixon in 1971, died of cancer at 85. The Class lost a seasoned Jurist.

In 2008, Cathy Seibel was appointed to replace Judge Brieant and in December of 2008 Class Counsel moved to have former Governor Pataki deposed [made to testify to or give evidence on oath, typically in a written statement]. In her first ever ruling on the case, in April of 2009, Judge Seibel denied plaintiffs' motion to compel Pataki's deposition.

In September of 2010, knowing Judge Siebel had given them their first favorable ruling in Graziano, the State moved for a third bite at the [dismissal] apple, asking Seibel to dismiss the action. Despite the fact that Judge Brieant, who was a seasoned judge with 37 years on the bench had twice denied the State's request to dismiss the action, Judge Siebel granted the State's dismissal request and directed the clerk to close the case.

An appeal was filed in the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and oral argument was allowed in March of 2012. On August 3, 2012 a majority of the Court affirmed Judge Seibel's dismissal, with Judge Stefan R. Underhill - sitting by designation from Connecticut - filing an informal reasoned dissenting opinion.

An en banc (asking the complete court) application is presently being filed to the 2nd Circuit.

Building Bridges - August 2012 edition

The August edition of Building Bridges has been issued by the Prison Action Network.

A brief summary is given below. Please see Building Bridges for full details:

* Black August and the Attica Rebellion.
* Bring back the Free Buses.
* Campaign Finance Reform is Governor Cuomo's Summer focus.
* Corey's Column on the Merle Cooper program.
* DNA databank expansion bill is now in effect. This DNA Databank Expansion Bill, passed by the Legislature in March, makes New York the first state in the nation to require the collection of DNA samples from anyone convicted of any felony or Penal Law misdemeanor.
* Electoral Politics; how your vote in the Sept 13 primary can make a difference.
* Family Empowerment Day 5.
* In Our Name: Restoring Justice in America - last call for registration!
* Legislation.
* Human Rights Watch Medical Parole research project solicits your input.
* "Munched" is donating the proceeds of a performance to WORTH.
* Parole News: June releases, summaries of three recent John Caher articles including the Graziano v. Pataki decision, getting your parole hearing transcripts faster, current commissioners.
* NYS Parole Reform Campaign plea from Rev. Stephen Lim.
* Prison Legal News is back in NYS prisons.
* Prison Media.
* NYS Prisoner Justice Network shares excerpts from their mailbox.
* The Prisoner Rights/Civil Rights Practice Group.
* Request for position papers: as an organization advocating for criminal justice reform, Prison Action Network is soliciting position papers on the issues which most deeply concern their members in prison and their family members.
* Sullivan's 2nd Look Think Tank met with Vanda Seward to discuss retooling parole.

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)

Update on the Graziano case, December 2011

Extract from article:

The Appellate Division, Third Department, has refused to reinstate an action on behalf of violent felons who contend the parole board has systematically violated state law in routinely denying release to Class A-1 convicts. The same issue was unsuccessfully litigated in federal court.

Graziano v. Evans, 512150, is the state court version of Graziano v. Pataki, 7:06-cv-00480, a Southern District case dismissed a year ago by Judge Cathy Seibel.

Judge Seibel rejected the plaintiffs' constitutional claims and the state courts have rejected their statutory claims.

The Third Department affirmed Albany Acting Supreme Court Justice Roger D. McDonough in dismissing the state court action ...

For full details, see the end part of this article:
Parole Board Ordered to Apply Retroactively Rehabilitation Factor, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, 27 Dec 2011)
See also:
A brief summary of the history of the Graziano case (Building Bridges, January 15 2012, at the end of section 5: Parole News)

Law Requires Board to Assess Rehabilitation in Parole Rulings

The revision of Executive Law §259(c) in the new budget legislation this year requires the parole board to establish and apply "risk and needs principles to measure the rehabilitation of persons appearing before the board" and to take into account the likelihood of success should the offender be released. In the past, the board "could" consider those factors; as of today it "must" consider them. The risk assessment tool is under development and is expected to be in use by November.

Advocates welcome the new paradigm and are eagerly awaiting the first batch of parole board determinations based on the revised standards. An article in the New York Law Journal includes the following reactions to the new law:

"This has the potential to really make a difference," said JoAnne Page, president and chief executive officer of The Fortune Society, a social services and advocacy group that promotes successful re-entry from prison.

"Static facts—what a person's record was, the nature of the crime—should not be the only things looked at when someone is appearing before the parole board," she said. "What [the new law] does is require looking at rehabilitation and likelihood of success on release and use of risk guidelines. If this is actually implemented, it will make an enormous difference."

Robert N. Isseks, an attorney in Middletown who has for years pursued a federal class action alleging that the parole board ignores current criteria and effectively acts as a re-sentencing body, said he has doubts.

The parole board routinely states in its determinations that it has considered requisite statutory criteria, and courts generally accept its assurances when inmates challenge a denial of parole release.

"I'd like to be optimistic," Mr. Isseks said. "I hope [the new law] will force them to do what they are supposed to do, but I can't predict. In the hundreds of decisions I have seen, there is plenty of reason to be skeptical."

An annual report issued by what was then the Division of Parole late last year stated that in the 2009-2010 fiscal year, 40 percent of the eligible inmates were released on parole (22 percent at the first opportunity) but only 9 percent of violent felony offenders.

The 2006 federal case filed by Mr. Isseks in the Southern District, Graziano v. Pataki, 7:06-cv-00480, was dismissed last December by Judge Cathy Seibel. Mr. Isseks is appealing and also attempting to reinstate a state court action pending before the Appellate Division, Third Department.

Mr. Isseks said the new requirements may put a heavier burden on the parole board to establish that it has performed more than a cursory review.

"These new guidelines might help the judges make more informed decisions, and give them something more to look at and consider," Mr. Isseks said.

Ms. Page agreed.

"This provides grounds for challenging a parole board hit on the basis of not having looked at evidence of rehabilitation or not having administered a recent risk assessment," she said. "It opens doors, provides a basis from which to challenge [a denial of parole]. It is a step in the right direction, and something that has been needed for many, many years."

Ms. Page said the new criteria may force the parole board to take into consideration that A-1 felons released on parole are at an extremely low risk of re-offending. In fact, state figures show that offenders who serve a sentence for murder are the least likely to commit a felony once they are paroled.

"People change," Ms. Page said. "If there is anything I know from my 22 years heading Fortune, it is that people who have been menaces to the community have the capacity to become good neighbors and make a positive difference in the world. And the people who committed the most horrific crimes and served decades [in prison] are beyond the age when people tend to recidivate."

Full text of report:

Law Requires Board to Assess Rehabilitation in Parole Rulings, by John Caher (New York Law Journal, September 30 2011)

Duane spearheads state parole reform

On May 13, State Senator Duane introduced the Safe and Fair Evaluations (SAFE) Parole Act to the Senate’s Crime and Correction Committee. The bill would provide landmark reform to New York’s parole system by amending paragraphs “a” and “c” of Executive Law § 259-i, which dictate current procedures for parole hearings.

“I’ve heard directly from so many inmates who’ve been unfairly denied parole,” Duane said in a phone interview last week. “It was their experiences that led me introduce the legislation.”

The inmates to whom he was referring are mainly those who have committed A1 felonies — and, of those, primarily murder — but have shown an high level of rehabilitative effort based on sustained good behavior and exemplary performance in academic, vocational or social programs (along with having served time well beyond their minimum sentences). The major obstacle for those inmates once they apply for parole is the fact that the Parole Board always treats their pleas based not on their records of improvement but on the violent nature of their original crimes. This has invariably led to repeated denials — even for inmates who have the support of family, community members or advocacy organizations.

In its current form, the bill redefines those standards by which inmates would be judged at a parole hearing, with the overriding focus on “preparedness for reentry and reintegration.” The amendments would make it more clearly unlawful to deny an applicant based on the nature of their crime (although doing so is already a technical violation of the current 259-i statute). The bill would also do much to change the setting in which hearings are held — by requiring the Parole Board to meet face-to-face with any prisoner making a case for his or her release, as opposed to the more impersonal and psychologically distant videoconferences that often take place.

Another notable amendment to the state law proposed by the bill is the language used within it. All instances of the word “inmate” are replaced with the decidedly more innocuous “parole applicant.” Judith Brink, the director of Prison Action Network — a prisoner-rights advocacy group that worked with Duane to create the SAFE Parole Act — understands that steps forward in a paradigm shift in the way ex-convicts are perceived by the public begins with the simple changes in terminology found in the bill.

“Removing the stigma of dehumanization from people who’ve committed crimes in the past, as well as from their loved ones, is a huge part of this,” she said. “It’s important now because I think that more people who are directly affected by the prison system are seeing that the ‘shaft of shame’ is disappearing.”

Brink also made it clear that the SAFE Parole Act is only a small piece of the Prison Action Network’s much larger movement called “The Reintegrative Justice Campaign,” which will work to change the response to crime from a punitive one to one that sets a goal of reintegration throughout the process.

“We picked this issue now primarily because of the fact that so many people are being denied parole based solely on the nature of their crimes, even though they have transformed themselves and really want to give back to their communities,” Brink said. “But we saw, as soon as we looked at the prison system, that it needs reworking from beginning to end. From the moment somebody’s arrested, the system has to change.”

What may be more pressing at this point — while both the authorities and the public have yet to fully adopt such a liberal view of those who are or have been incarcerated — is making sure that the Parole Board is not able to circumvent the state law even after it has been amended. Robert Isseks, a Middletown attorney, is skeptical about board members following the letter of the law — because he’s already suing them for it. He currently represents ten inmates in an ongoing class action lawsuit against the state.

“The Parole Board has not been exercising its discretion according to the statute [259-i], which states that it should be done on an individual, case-by-case basis. When it comes to people convicted of A1 [felonies], they arbitrarily deny them based on that and for no other reason,” Isseks said. “So let’s just say that there’s certainly reason to doubt whether the board will follow [a new bill], simply because they’ve already continued to break the rules in that regard. So that’s troubling.”

But Duane is confident in the strength of his bill, as well as its chances of passing through the State Senate with relatively few changes. Like Brink, he sees it as one part of a greater shift that will take place — and that now, it’s just a matter of getting his peers and their constituents on board.

“I believe that all of the elements of the legislation are common sense and fair,” he said. “I wouldn’t pick out one more particular section and say that it would be more or less palatable, because holistically, it’s going to reform the parole system, and people are either going to be supportive of that or not.”

Assemblyman Jeffrion Aubry introduced the SAFE Parole Act into the Corrections Committee of the State Assembly on May 25, but could not be reached for comment regarding the bill. He was also conspicuously absent from the College and Community Fellowship’s 11th Annual Graduate Celebration for formerly incarcerated women who were receiving college degrees, which took place last Thursday in Harlem.

The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision — which includes both the former Department of Correctional Services and Division of Parole (a merger created by Governor Cuomo’s 2011-12 Executive Budget) — declined to comment on the bill.

Both versions of the SAFE Parole Act — within the State Assembly and State Senate committees — have yet to be voted on or discussed at length by the committee members. Chelsea Now will continue to cover the development of the bill, as well as the ongoing parole reform movement, throughout the year.

The SAFE Parole Act can be found at: http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S5374-2011

Duane spearheads state parole reform, by Sam Spokony (Chelsea Now, June 15 2011)

Graziano v. Pataki update: December 10th 2010

A major disappointment in the Graziano v. Pataki federal civil rights case, which aims to restore justice and fairness to the parole hearings of inmates convicted of violent felonies.

GRAZIANO v. PATAKI update from the Prison Action Network:

On Friday, Dec 10 2010, Judge Seibel of the US District Court, Southern District of New York, dismissed the above-referenced case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The court declined to follow the law of the case decided by the late Judge Brieant, and despite not finding a change in the applicable law, decided to follow a non-binding, unpublished opinion by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In short, the judge stated that even if the NY Parole Board is violating state law by deciding that all those convicted of murder should be denied parole, it is a matter of concern for the state courts, not the federal constitution. Robert Isseks, Alex Smith and Peter Sell, the legal team representing Graziano et. al. intend to appeal this ruling.

Additionally, in September Judge McDonough in Albany State Supreme Court dismissed their claim on state law grounds. They plan to appeal to the Second Circuit.

Building Bridges - December 2010 edition

The December edition of Building Bridges has been issued by the Prison Action Network.

Topics covered this month include:

1. Activism: actions, meetings and events

2. Buffalo’s Jerry Balone inspires students

3. Introducing the In Your Face Movement

4. The New Jim Crow, Chapter 2 quotes

5. Lifers and Longtermers Clearinghouse by Larry Luqman White

6. NYS Parole Reform Campaign - time to take two steps forward!

7. Parole news, including Graziano update

* Lifers and Longtermers Clearinghouse: Larry White and the Hope Lives for Lifers Reintegration Program have developed a reintegration program consisting of a series of study groups/workshops to address particular reintegration needs of incarcerated individuals preparing for release.

* The NYS Parole Reform Campaign asks advocacy organizations to support their legislative proposal to reform the parole process so that parole applicants are fairly evaluated instead of being punished with repeated and unjustifiable parole denials.

* On Friday, Dec 10, Judge Seibel of the US District Court, Southern District of New York, dismissed the above-referenced case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The court declined to follow the law of the case decided by the late Judge Brieant, and despite not finding a change in the applicable law, decided to follow a non-binding, unpublished opinion by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Graziano v. Pataki update: December 1st 2009

Brief update on Graziano v. Pataki, from the Prison Action Network:

"Graziano update: The case is still alive. Parties are waiting to learn the outcome of a case before the second circuit that could impact the Graziano case."

Building Bridges - November 2009 edition

The November edition of Building Bridges is now available from the Prison Action Network.

Items covered in this issue include:

1. Activities around NYS
2. CFFCJP reports
3. Gardening at prison
4. ICARE column
5. Job opportunities
6. Lady Penumbra and Ty Conscious
7. Legislation
8. Lifers and Longtermers Clearinghouse
9. Obituary
10. Parole news
11. Post-conviction sealing hotline seeks input
12. Prison media
13. Prisoners of the census
14. Telephone rates lowered
15. Transportation to prisons

There are no further updates on the Graziano v. Pataki class action case.

Building Bridges - September 2009 edition

The September edition of Building Bridges is now available from the Prison Action Network.

Items covered in this issue include:

1. Actions you can take
2. Center for Community Alternatives - two stories
3. Coalition For Fair Criminal Justice Policies
4. Fiscal crisis in corrections
5. ICARE Reports
6. Legislation
7. Lifers and Longtermers Clearinghouse
8. Parole news
9. Prison media
10. Transportation to prisons
11. Karen Lewis is found!

There are no further updates on the Graziano v. Pataki class action case.

Building Bridges - August 2009 edition

The August edition of Building Bridges is now available from the Prison Action Network.

Subjects covered in this issue include:
1. Actions you can take
2. Birth in shackles
3. ICARE is on vacation
4. Legislation updates and bills to watch
5. Parole News
6. Prison Media
7. Prisoners of the census
8. Public Defense
9. Transportation
10. Voting rights
11. Writing Contest

There are no further updates on the Graziano v. Pataki class action case.

Update on Merit Time Bill S2932/A6487: the Bill has passed out of the Senate Crime Victims, Crime and Corrections Committee and is now sitting in the Rules Committee.

Building Bridges - June 2009 edition

The June 2009 issue of Building Bridges has been released by the Prison Action Network.

Items discussed in this issue include:
1. A list of ways you can help create positive change
2. Citizens Against Recidivism reports on "Considering the Evidence on Long Term Sentences"
3. Coalition for Fair Criminal Justice Policies Update
4. ICARE Reports
5. Legislation Report
6. Lifers and Longtermers Clearinghouse update on community linkages
7. Parole news and statistics
8. Prison Media: Fancy Broccoli, Soul Spectrum, and Still Here Harlem
9. SHU Bill Hearing held in March to discuss delay in implementation
10. Temporary Work Release: part 2 of "Wilderness or Promised Land"
11. Transportation to Prison

There were no new developments in the Graziano v. Pataki class action case during May.

Of particular interest in this edition of Building Bridges is the report of the Citizens Against Recidivism on the panel discussion held on May 5th at the Graduate Center at CUNY. The discussion was lead by Dr. Michelle Fine, a Distinguished Professor at the Graduate Center; panelists included Kathy Boudin, Eric Waters (Osbourne Association), Mika’il DeVeaux (Citizens Against Recidivism, Inc.), Carla Marquez (Ph.D. candidate at the Graduate Center) and Felipe Vargas (The Doe Fund). The aim of the panel was to review evidence relating to people in prison with long term sentences, particularly those who have committed violent offenses. Current policies toward this class of incarcerated people were discussed; and suggestions were made for various new policies for inmates whose release is thought to better serve the public interest and increase public safety.

Graziano v. Pataki update: April 1st 2009

Update on Graziano v. Pataki, from the Prison Action Network:

"GRAZIANO VS PATAKI: The parties are still waiting for a decision on the motion to compel the Pataki deposition."

Graziano v. Pataki update: March 1st 2009

Update on Graziano v. Pataki, from the Prison Action Network:

"UPDATE ON GRAZIANO VS PATAKI: The judge has been presented with Graziano’s motion to compel Pataki’s deposition, and Pataki's opposition argument. We await her decision."

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

Graziano v. Pataki update: January 31st 2009

Update on Graziano v. Pataki, from the Prison Action Network:

"UPDATE ON GRAZIANO VS PATAKI: Graziano lawyers had to file a motion to compel Gov. Pataki's deposition. The Attorney General had until Jan 12 to file opposition papers. They asked for an extension and the judge has not yet issued her decision whether to grant it."

Graziano v. Pataki update: January 1st 2009

Update on Graziano v. Pataki, from the Prison Action Network:

"UPDATE ON GRAZIANO VS PATAKI: This is the case in which a group of incarcerated men are suing the Governor for having an illegal policy of not granting parole to A1 Violent Offenders. The lawyers had to file a motion to compel Gov. Pataki’s deposition. The Court will issue a decision on it and then schedule a conference. The Attorney General’s opposition papers are due on January 12 and Graziano’s reply, if any, on January 19."