United States District Court, N.D. New York
Jonathan Johnson, Upstate Correctional Facility, Malone, NY, Plaintiff Pro Se.
Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General for the State of New York, David J. Sleight, Esq., Buffalo, NY, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
BRENDA K. SANNES, District Judge.
Plaintiff pro se Johnathon Johnson brings this action against defendants Jeff McKay, Gail Haponik, Dr. Carl Koenigsmann, Joseph Bellinier, Maureen E. Boll, Brian Fischer, David Rock, Theodore Zerniak, and Donald Uhler, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and New York state law arising out of his incarceration at Upstate Correctional facility. (Dkt. No. 5). Plaintiff alleges that defendants: (1) denied him access to the courts by depriving him of paper, mail, outside communications, and access to the prison law library; and (2) denied him videotapes for and access to inmate grievance procedures. (Dkt. No. 5). Plaintiff originally filed a verified complaint in State of New York Supreme Court, Franklin County on April 16, 2013. (Dkt. No. 1-1). On July 2, 2014, defendants removed the action to this Court. (Dkt. No. 1). On July 7, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 2). Plaintiff filed an affirmation in opposition to defendants' motion, and sought to remand this action back to State Court. (Dkt. Nos. 6, 7). On December 9, 2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion to remand. (Dkt. No. 9).
Upon referral pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.3(c), United States Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks issued a Report-Recommendation and Order ("Report-Recommendation"), dated March 4, 2015, recommending that defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim be granted, and that plaintiff be granted leave to amend his claim regarding access to the courts, but denied leave to amend his claim regarding access to the grievance program. (Dkt. No. 19, pp. 10-11). Magistrate Judge Dancks found that plaintiff was not denied access to the courts because he filed myriad federal lawsuits during the time period in which he alleges that he was deprived of paper, mail, outside communications, and access to the prison law library, and therefore, plaintiff failed to plead an actual injury. ( Id., p. 9). With respect to plaintiff's claim that he was denied evidence for and access to grievance procedures, Magistrate Judge Dancks found that plaintiff failed to state a claim because prison inmates have no protected constitutional interest in grievance proceedings. ( Id., p. 10).
Plaintiff has filed several objections to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 20). First, plaintiff objects to the recommended dismissal of his denial of access to the courts claim on the grounds that the Court improperly took judicial notice of other lawsuits plaintiff has brought without giving him the opportunity to be heard. ( Id., pp. 7-10). Plaintiff further argues that the Court improperly "resolve[d] [a] factual dispute" regarding his access to the courts, and "did not treat the defendants' motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment." ( Id., p. 6). Plaintiff also argues that the public records considered by the Court did not include his cases dismissed for failure to prosecute. ( Id., p. 12).
Second, plaintiff objects to the recommended dismissal of his claim for denial of access to grievance procedures on the grounds that "Plaintiff's involvement in filing claims against prison officials, and helping others do so, was protected activity as it was an exercise of his right to petition the government for redress of grievances under the First Amendment." (Dkt. No. 20, p. 14). Third, plaintiff objects that the Report-Recommendation "failed to address Johnson's supplemental [state law] claims." ( Id., p. 16). Plaintiff argues that access to grievance procedures is protected under New York state law, and therefore, his claims "would be properly adjudicated by this court." ( Id. ).
Defendants have not responded to plaintiff's objections. For the reasons set forth below, the Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety.
II. Standard of Review
This Court reviews de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations that have been specifically objected to by plaintiff Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F.Supp. 3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To be specific, the objection must, with particularity, "identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which it has an objection and the basis for the objection." N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c). Under de novo review, the Court must "examine the entire record, and make an independent assessment of the magistrate judge's factual and legal conclusions." Almonte v. N.Y.State Div. of Parole, No. 04 Civ. 484, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2926, at * 15, 2006 WL 149049, at *5 (N.D.N.Y Jan. 18, 2006) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675 (1980)). Findings and recommendations that are not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Petersen, 2 F.Supp. 3d at 229; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. Where only vague or general objections are made, or a party resubmits the same papers and arguments that have already been considered by the magistrate judge, the findings and recommendations are also reviewed for clear error. Petersen, 2 F.Supp. 3d at 228-229. After review, the Court "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
A complaint shall be dismissed on defendant's motion when it fails to "state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a complaint must contain, inter alia, "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)) (emphasis added). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 678. "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief... requires the... court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.... [W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not shown-that the pleader is entitled to relief." Id. at 679 (internal citation and punctuation omitted). Accordingly, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
"In reviewing a complaint for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept the material facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Hernandez v. Coughlin, 18 F.3d 133, 136 (2d Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Courts are "obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally." Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Thus a pro se complaint "should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 10 (1980). Although pro se complaints must be construed liberally, civil rights complaints "must contain specific allegations of fact which indicate a deprivation of constitutional rights; allegations which are nothing more than broad, simple, and conclusory statements are insufficient to state a claim under § 1983." Allan) Motors, Inc. v. Ward, 814 F.2d 883, 887 (2d Cir. 1987).
In view of plaintiff's specific objections, this Court conducts a de novo review of the portions of the Report-Recommendation regarding plaintiff's claims for denial of access to the courts and denial of evidence for and access to inmate grievance procedures.
A. Denial of Access to the Courts
Plaintiff alleges that defendants denied him access to the courts from 2007 to 2013 by depriving him of paper, mail, outside communications, and access to the prison law library. (Dkt. No. 5, pp. 2-3). "A prisoner has a constitutional right of access to the courts for the purpose of presenting his claims, a right that prison officials cannot unreasonably obstruct and that states have affirmative obligations to assure." Washington v. James, 782 F.2d 1134, 1138 (2d Cir. 1986) (citing Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821-23 (1977)). To state a claim for denial of access to the courts under § 1983, plaintiff must allege facts to plausibly suggest: "(1) a nonfrivolous, arguable underlying claim' that has been frustrated by the defendants' actions, and (2) a continued inability to obtain the relief sought by the underlying claim." Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 559, 592 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Christopher v. Harbor)), 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002)).
"[T]he right [of access to the courts] is ancillary to the underlying claim, without which a plaintiff cannot have suffered injury by being shut out of court." Harbor)), 536 U.S. at 415. In order words, plaintiff must demonstrate an "actual injury" by showing that his underlying claim was non-frivolous. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351-353 (1996) (reasoning that the "actual injury" requirement means that inmates must "demonstrate that a nonfrivolous legal claim ha[s] been frustrated or was being impeded."). "It follows that the underlying cause of action, whether anticipated or lost, is an element that must be described in the complaint." Harbury, 536 U.S. at 415. Ultimately, "the complaint should state the underlying claim in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), just as if it were being independently pursued." Id. at 417.
Here, plaintiff has failed to state any facts to suggest what underlying claim or claims were allegedly frustrated by defendants. Instead, plaintiff makes a blanket statement "that he was denied access to the Courts, Federal and State, pending criminal and civil proceeding due to the Paper Deprivation Order, from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and from March-April 2013." (Dkt. No. 5, p. 2). Plaintiff also alleges that he was denied access to the prison law library, postal mail, and outside communications during the same period. ( Id., at 3). As for an injury, plaintiff alleges only that "as a result of the Access to the Courts denial Plaintiff has lost all appeals with the Third Department-Supreme Court of the State of New York... And the Supreme Court of the State of New York-Albany County" during the same time period. ( Id., at 4).
Thus, while the Complaint contains sufficient facts to plausibly suggest that defendants frustrated his right to access the courts, plaintiff has failed to identify any underlying cause of action. To state a claim for denial of access to the courts, plaintiff must plead the underlying claim and facts to plausibly suggest that it is not frivolous. Plaintiff's allegation that he sustained an injury because he lost appeals in State Court is entirely conclusory because he failed to describe the underlying claims. While a complaint must be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint must still contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for denial of access to the courts because the Complaint alleges no facts to suggest an actual injury.
Plaintiff argues that in recommending dismissal of his claim for denial of access to the courts, Magistrate Judge Dancks improperly took judicial notice of his litigation history. (Dkt No. 20, pp. 7-10). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a court "may take judicial notice on its own" of "a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)-(c). Further, "it is well established that courts may take judicial notice of publicly available documents on a motion to dismiss." In re DDAVP Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litig., 903 F.Supp.2d 198, 208 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); see also Blue Tree Hotels Inv. (Can.), Ltd. v. Stanwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 369 F.3d 212, 217 (2d Cir. 2004) (courts can "look to public records... in deciding a motion to dismiss."). Thus, plaintiff's prolific litigation history,  which is a matter of public record, is a proper subject of judicial notice. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Rotches Pork Packers, Inc., 969 F.2d 1384, 1388 (2d Cir. 1992) ("A court may take judicial notice of a document filed in another court to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings, but not for the truth of the matters asserted in the other litigation.") (internal citation omitted).
Moreover, a court may consider matters that are subject to judicial notice, such as plaintiff's past lawsuits, without converting a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152-53 (2d Cir. 2002); Brass v. Am. Film Techs., Inc., 987 F.2d 142, 150 (2d Cir. 1993); Xiotech Corp. v. Express Data Prods. Corp., ESL LLC, 11 F.Supp. 3d 225, 234 (N.D.N.Y. 2014). However, the Court has confined its review to the Complaint in assessing plaintiff's denial of access to the courts claim. As discussed above, the Court finds, without reference to plaintiff's litigation history, that the Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for denial of access to the courts.
Accordingly, as recommended by Magistrate Judge Dancks, plaintiff is granted leave to amend the Complaint to plead facts detailing the specific nonfrivolous claim or claims that defendants are alleged to have frustrated. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (A pro se complaint should not be dismissed "without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.") (internal citation omitted). Therefore, plaintiff's objection to the Report-Recommendation regarding his claim for denial of access to the courts is without merit.
B. Denial of Evidence for and Access to Inmate Grievance Procedures
Plaintiff also objects to the recommended dismissal of his First Amendment claim for denial of access to inmate grievance procedures. (Dkt. No. 20, p. 14). In support, plaintiff cites numerous cases where inmates brought First Amendment claims related to issues with the Inmate Grievance Program. ( Id. ). However, the cases on which plaintiff relies all involve First Amendment retaliation claims. See Gayle v. Gonyea, 313 F.3d 677 (2d Cir. 2002); Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1996); Scott v. Coughlin, 344 F.3d 282 (2d Cir. 2003); Morales v. Mackalm, 278 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2002). Here, plaintiff alleges that he was denied the full opportunity to file a grievance, not that he suffered retaliation for filing a grievance. Therefore, in the absence of any facts suggesting a First Amendment retaliation claim, the cases cited by plaintiff are inapplicable.
Plaintiff has a constitutional right to petition the government, through the courts, for the redress of "grievances" in the general sense. See Bill Johnson's Restaurants. Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 741 (1983); Morello v. James, 810 F.2d 344, 347 (2d Cir. 1987). However, specific "inmate grievance programs created by state law are not required by the Constitution, and consequently allegations that prison officials violated those procedures [do] not give rise to a cognizable [Section] 1983 claim." Shell v. Brzezniak, 365 F.Supp.2d 362, 369-70 (W.D.N.Y. 2005); see also Brown v. Graham, 470 F.App'x 11, 13 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that a prisoner litigant's claim that he has a "federally-protected liberty interest in the state's compliance with its own prison grievance procedures is meritless."); Alvarado v. Westchester Cnty., 22 F.Supp. 3d 208, 214 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); Mimms v. Carr, No. 09 Civ. 5740, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61853, at *30, 2011 WL 2360059, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. June 9, 2011) ("The First Amendment is not implicated... where prison officials deny an inmate access to grievance procedures."); Justice v. Coughlin, 941 F.Supp. 1312, 1316 (N.D.N.Y. 1996) ("[M]ere violations of the grievance system do not violate the Constitution.").
Thus, even assuming that defendants denied plaintiff evidence for or access to inmate grievance procedures at Upstate Correctional Facility, such facts simply do not implicate the First Amendment or give rise to a constitutional claim. Accordingly, plaintiff's objection to the Report-Recommendation regarding his claim for denial of evidence for and access to inmate grievance procedures is without merit.
C. State Law Claims
Finally, plaintiff argues that his Complaint should not be dismissed because, even if his § 1983 claims are dismissed, he has also alleged claims under New York state law. (Dkt. No. 20, pp. 15-18). Liberally construing the Complaint, plaintiff has alleged violations of Article 1, Sections 5 and 6 of the New York State Constitution parallel to his federal claims for denial of access to the courts and denial of evidence for and access to grievance procedures. (Dkt. No. 5, p. 5). However, in light of the dismissal of plaintiff's federal claims, and given the early stage of the case, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims at this juncture. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Valencia v. Sung M. Lee, 316 F.3d 299, 306 (2d Cir. 2003). In the event plaintiff amends the Complaint to state a valid claim for denial of access to the courts, the Court will exercise jurisdiction over his state law claims.
In conclusion, after carefully reviewing all of the papers in this action, including Magistrate Judge Dancks's Report-Recommendation, and Plaintiff's Objections thereto, the Court concludes that the Report-Recommendation is correct in all respects.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED, and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's claim for denial of evidence for and access to grievance procedures is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff's claim for denial of access to the courts is DISMISSED without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this Memorandum-Decision and Order, plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint limited to his claim for denial of access to the courts, to plausibly suggest that he suffered an actual injury; and it is further
ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days of this Memorandum-Decision and Order, this action will be dismissed with prejudice; and it is further;
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve on the parties a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order in accordance with the Local Rules of the Northern District of New York; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide plaintiff with copies of the unpublished decisions cited herein in accordance with the Second Circuit decision in Lebron v. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Rafael Almonte, No. 00-A-2216, Clinton Correctional Facility, Dannemora, New York, Plaintiff, pro se.
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General State of New York, Department of Law, The Capitol, Albany, New York, for the Respondent.
Steven H. Schwartz, Asst. Attorney General, of counsel.
Memorandum-Decision and Order
*1 Rafael Almonte challenges a New York State Parole Board decision denying him parole. See Pro Se, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Habeas Corpus Pet. ("Petition); Dkt. No 1. The petition was referred to Magistrate Judge David R. Homer, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.4, who recommended that it be denied. See Dkt. No. 10. Almonte filed a limited objection challenging only Judge Homer's conclusion that the Parole Board's decision was not arbitrary and capricious.FN1 Having considered Almonte's objection, having reviewed Judge Homer's arbitrary and capricious conclusion de novo and the remainder of his report for clear error, the court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety for the reasons stated by Judge Homer. Additionally, Almonte has procedurally defaulted, thus forfeiting his right to judicial review of all findings and conclusions except whether the Parole Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious.
FN1. This matter was referred to the undersigned for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and N.D.N.Y.L.R. 72.4.
Following Almonte's 1989 conviction for drug possession, the Bronx Supreme Court sentenced him to an indeterminate term of six years to life imprisonment. After he was released to life-time parole in 1994, Almonte was arrested in 1996 for a conspiracy to commit robbery and to shoot a police officer. In 2000, he pled guilty to conspiracy and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of two to four years imprisonment. Because his 2000 conviction violated the terms of his earlier parole, his release was revoked and he was required to complete the remainder of his 1989 six years to life sentence.
When Almonte subsequently appeared before the Parole Board in July 2000, his release application was denied, and he was ordered held for two years before he could reapply. Almonte appealed. On March 29, 2001, the denial was vacated because the Division of Parole could not locate the minutes of Almonte's earlier appearance. On April 10, 2001, he reappeared before the Parole Board for a de novo hearing, parole was again denied, and the two year preclusion was re-instituted, effective from the date of his first appearance. That decision was affirmed on May 15, 2002. Twice more in 2002 and 2004, Almonte sought parole release and was denied.
Almonte's petition claims: (1) the Parole Board's 2001 decision violated New York's Executive Law and Code of Rules and Regulations; (2) the two year preclusion forbidding a renewed application was excessive; and (3) the Parole Board's failure to make a timely decision and its reliance on impermissible information violated his substantive and procedural due process rights.
In response, the Attorney General asserted that Almonte's claims should be denied because: (1) they are not cognizable on habeas review because there is no constitutional or statutory right to parole release; (2) they are moot since Almonte had two parole hearings which post-dated the 2001 hearing under attack; and (3) they are procedurally defaulted because the last state court considering the claims denied them on the basis of a state procedural bar, and Almonte failed to demonstrate either cause and prejudice or actual innocence.
*2 Judge Homer's report carefully analyzed each of Almonte's claims. Judge Homer found that New York's parole scheme does not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest, and that Almonte's challenge was therefore limited to whether the Parole Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. He then analyzed the relevant New York statutes, and articulated the reasons why the parole decision was not arbitrary and capricious and why Almonte was afforded the process due. Judge Homer declined to reach the merits of the Attorney General's mootness argument, and resolved the issue of procedural default in Almonte's favor.
In the report's concluding paragraph, Judge Homer recited the standard warning that accompanies all reports issued in this district; namely:
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may lodge written objections to the foregoing report. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS RPORT WITHIN TEN DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir.1983); Small v. Secretary of HHS, 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir.1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72, 6(a), 6(e). (emphasis in the original)
Almonte subsequently filed timely, but limited objections.FN2 See Dkt. No. 11 ("Almonte Objections" ). He generally objected to Judge Homer's findings and conclusions, id. at ¶ I, and supported his general objection by referencing the arguments in his original petition. Id . at ¶ 2. However, his only specific, written objection related to Judge Homer's conclusion that the Parole Board had not acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Id . at ¶¶ 3-5. Therefore, he procedurally defaulted and is not entitled to judicial review of Judge Homer's other conclusions.
FN2. Each of the denials barred Almonte from re-applying for parole for twenty-four months.
A. Legal Principles
By statute and rule, district courts are authorized to refer habeas corpus petitions to Magistrate Judges for proposed findings and recommendations regarding disposition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) & (B); Rules 8 & 10 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Petitions in the United States District Courts, foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By local rule, the Northern District does so automatically, randomly referring all pro se state habeas corpus petitions to Magistrate Judges. See L.R. 40.1, 72.3(c), 72.4(a); General Order # 12, §D(1)(G).
When a report and recommendation is filed, the parties must comply with specified procedures if they seek statutorily mandated district court review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); Rule 8 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Petitions in the United States District Courts, foll. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254; L.R. 72.1(c). Thus, they have ten (10) days from receipt of the report to file specific, written objections to proposed findings and recommendations, and ten (10) days from the receipt of adversary objections to file responses. Id. Although the statute and federal rules are clear, the local rules are clearer yet that parties must file written objections that specify the findings and recommendations to which they object, and the basis for their objections. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); Rule 8 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Petitions in the United States District Courts, foll, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 with L.R. 72.1(c). The local rule is by no means inconsistent with the statute or federal rules, and is therefore legally enforceable. See Whitfield v. Scully, 241 F.3d 264, 270 (2d Cir.2001); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 83(a)(b).
*3 The district court must review de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations that have been properly preserved by compliance with the specificity requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); Rule 8 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Petitions in the United States District Courts, foll. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254; L.R. 72.1(c). After review, the district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge... [and] may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); Rule 8 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Petitions in the United States District Courts, foll. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254.
If a party fails to object, or timely or specifically object, it procedurally defaults, and it is entitled to no judicial review whatsoever. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 & n. 7, 150, 152, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir.2003); Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir.2002); Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, 219 F.3d 162, 174 (2d Cir.2000); DeLeon v. Strack, 234 F.3d 84, 86 (2d Cir.2000); United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38-39 (2d Cir.1997); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Hillcrest Associates, 66 F.3d 566, 569 (2d Cir.1995); IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrman, 9 F.3d 1049, 1054 (2d Cir.1993); Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir.1993); Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir.1992); Wesolek v. Canadair Limited, 838 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir.1988); Abehouse v. Ultragraphics, Inc., 754 F.2d 467, 473 (2d Cir.1985); McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F.2d 234, 237 & n. 2 (2d Cir.1983); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) advisory committee note (1983). Although the doctrine of procedural default developed as a Circuit appellate rule, it applies in the district courts as long as parties, including those appearing pro se, receive clear notice of the consequences of their failure to properly object. DeLeon v. Strack, 234 F.3d at 86 (citing Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d at 38-39); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. at 149 & n. 7 (statute does not preclude procedural default analysis at the district court level). As to pro se parties, the notice requirement is satisfied if the report at least states that the failure to object will preclude appellate review, and cites 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72, 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d at 89; Frank v. Johnson, 969 F.2d at 300. In this district, reports routinely recite the requisite warning, as did Judge Homer's in this case.
The doctrine of procedural default naturally flows from the Congressional expectation that highly credentialed men and women would fill the Magistrate Judge positions after the passage of the Federal Magistrates Act. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. at 148 & 152; see also 28 U.S.C. § 631 (merit selection process). Thus, the Act was designed to provide district courts with additional assistance, and any requirement mandating district court review of Magistrate Judges' reports absent objections "would be an inefficient use of judicial resources." Id. at 148.
*4 Although the failure to object or timely object constitutes procedural default, other factual predicates give rise to default as well. Thus, a party that limits its specific objections to a part of a report's findings or recommendations procedurally defaults as to the remainder. See Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d at 107 (citing Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d at 766). Default occurs when objections are not specific or written, Abehouse v. Ultragraphics, Inc., 754 F.2d at 473, and a general objection is not a specific objection. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6-7 (3d Cir.1984); Douglas v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir.1996); Neuman v. Rivers, 125 F.3d 315, 321-23 (6th Cir.1997); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir.1988); United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir.1996); Grosso v. Artuz, No. 97 Civ. 1623, 1998 WL 542312, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.25, 1998) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. at 147-48). Resubmission of the same papers and arguments as submitted to the Magistrate Judge fails to comply with the specificity requirement because the local rule requires that objections address specific findings and conclusions. See Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. County of Albany, 281 F.Supp.2d 436, 439 (N.D.N.Y.2003); Camardo v. General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan, 806 F.Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y.1992) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (former 5th Cir. 1882) (en banc ) ("[i]t is reasonable to place upon the parties the duty to pinpoint those portions of the magistrate's report that the district court must specifically consider. The rule facilitates the opportunity for district judges to spend more time on matters actually contested and produces a result compatible with the purposes of the Magistrates Act.")); but see Cicio v. John Does 1-8, 321 F.3d 83, 90 n. 5 (2d Cir.2003). Furthermore, frivolous or conclusory objections fail to satisfy the specificity requirement. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d at 410 n. 8; Arbor Hill, 281 F.Supp.2d at 439; Camardo, 806 F.Supp. at 382; Brown v. Peters , No. Civ. A. 95-CV-1641, 1997 WL 599355, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Sept.22, 1997) (Pooler, DJ).
Because procedural default is non-jurisdictional, the district court retains discretion to disregard it in the interests of justice. Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d at 107 (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. at 155). Such discretion is "based on, among other factors, whether the defaulted argument has substantial merit or, put otherwise, whether the magistrate judge committed plain error in ruling against the defaulted party." Spence, 219 F.3d at 174 (citing Theede v. United States Dep't ofLabor, 172 F.3d 1262, 1268 (10th Cir.1999); Douglas, 79 F.3d at 1428). As the Supreme Court has observed:
[T]he district court... must exercise supervision over the magistrate. Even... [if a procedural default rule permits a]... district judge... to refuse to review a magistrate's report absent timely objection... [t]he rule merely establishes a procedural default that has no effect on the... court's jurisdiction. The district judge has jurisdiction over the case at all times. He retains full authority to decide whether to refer a case to the magistrate, to review the magistrate's report, and to enter judgment. Any party that desires plenary consideration need only ask. Moreover, while the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.
*5 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. at 154.
As noted, if the parties properly object, the court must conduct a de novo review, and may do so regardless. De novo review requires that the court "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objections have been made.' It will examine the entire record, and make an independent assessment of the magistrate judge's factual and legal conclusions." United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980) (citing H.R.Rep. No. 94-1609, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. p. 3 (1976), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 1976, p. 6163); see also 12 Charles Alan Wright et. al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3070.2 (2d ed.1997). 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) actually employs the phrase "de novo determination" rather than "de novo hearing, " thus permitting "whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, [chooses] to place on a magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." Grassia v. Scully, 892 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir.1989) (citing Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 676). When the district court makes its de novo determination, the parties have no right to present evidence not submitted to the Magistrate Judge. Nonetheless, the court retains the discretion to consider additional evidence although it should afford the parties notice. See Hynes v. Squillace, 143 F.3d 653, 656 (2d Cir.1998) (citing Paddington Partners v. Bouchard, 34 F.3d 1132, 1137-38 (2d Cir.1994); Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 894 F.2d 36, 40 n. 3 (2d Cir.1990)).
The more complex question arises when a party procedurally defaults, the court is neither statutorily mandated to conduct de novo review nor does it elect to do so, but it concludes that some review is in order nonetheless. Under such circumstances, what standard applies? In short, the court may elect any standard it wishes.
28 U.S.C. § 636 and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are both silent on the review standard under such circumstances. However, the Rule 72(b) Advisory Committee Note suggests that the court will review for "clear error, " stating:
"When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. See Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879, 95 S.Ct. 143, 42 L.Ed.2d 119, quoted in House Report No. 94-1609, 94th Cong.2d Sess. (1976) at 3. Compare Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir.1980).
See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note (1983). Numerous decisions cite the 1983 Note as persuasively requiring "clear error" review, but the value of that Note is undercut by dicta in the Supreme Court's 1985 decision in Thomas v. Arn . There, the Court stated: "[W]hile the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard." Arn, 474 U.S. at 154.
*6 When reviewing reports despite procedural default, district courts have applied standards with varying names and definitions. Thus, some adopt the "clearly erroneous" standard that is articulated in the statute and federal rule governing review of a Magistrate Judge's nondispositive orders, and referenced in the 1983 Advisory Committee Note. See e.g. Martinez v. Senkowski, No. 6:97-CV-0624, 2000 WL 888031, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. June 28, 2000); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a). Given the definition typically assigned to "clearly erroneous, " the courts review a report to determine whether the findings are against the clear weight of the evidence, or whether the recommendations cause the court to definitely and firmly conclude that a mistake has been committed. See Concrete Pipe and Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622, 113 S.Ct. 2264, 124 L.Ed.2d 539 (1993) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)). Other courts have adopted a "contrary to law" standard which means that the report fails to apply, or misapplies, relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure. See e.g. Catskill Development, L.L.C. v. Park Place Entertainment Corp., 206 F.R.D. 78, 86 (S.D.N.Y.2002); Tompkins v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Co., 92 F.Supp.2d 70, 74 (N.D.N.Y.2000). When excusing procedural default in the interests of justice, the Circuit has reviewed the underlying decision or report for "plain error." See Spence, 219 F.3d at 174 (citing Douglas, 79 F.3d at 1428 (5th Cir.1996) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). Plain error is one that is clear or obvious and affects substantial rights. Spence, 219 F.3d at 174.
Mindful that district courts retain jurisdictional authority over all dispositive issues, this court routinely reviews reports before entering final judgment whether objections are registered or not. When the court does so, however, it is aware that the reports are generated by Magistrate Judges with extraordinary professional and judicial experience. Accordingly, when required by statute or rule or when the court's routine review so dictates, the court will make a de novo determination of findings and recommendations. Absent de novo review, the court will apply a "clearly erroneous" standard, and defines that phrase as follows: a report is clearly erroneous if the court determines that there is a mistake of fact or law which is obvious and affects substantial rights. Furthermore, the court will routinely identify issues which have been procedurally defaulted, and articulate the standard of review applied to all issues.
B. Judge Homer's Report and the Objections
In part, Judge Homer's report concludes: New York's parole statute does not create a protected liberty interest subject to the full panoply of due process safeguards; the two year preclusion forbidding Almonte from submitting a renewed parole application was consistent with the mandates of New York law, and therefore not excessive; Almonte's petition is not moot; and Almonte has not procedurally defaulted. Almonte has now procedurally defaulted on the first two findings because his objections regarding them were either nonexistent or non-specific. By failing to object whatsoever or file a response to Almonte's objections, the respondent has procedurally defaulted on the second two. Because these findings are not clearly erroneous, the court adopts them in their entirety for the reasons stated by Judge Homer.
*7 Judge Homer also concluded that the Parole Board decision was not arbitrary and capricious, and Almonte has specifically objected to that conclusion. The court has conducted a de novo review of Judge Homer's conclusion, Almonte's objection, and the underlying record.
As Judge Homer observed, the parole decision was not arbitrary and capricious if the Parole Board gave Almonte an opportunity to be heard and advised him of the reasons for denying parole. Almonte had three hearings, was heard during all three, and received written denial decisions. In his petition and in his objection, Almonte essentially argues that the Parole Board saw fit to release him after his first conviction, but refused to do so after his second because it impermissibly considered facts that were not part of his conspiracy conviction. To the contrary, the Parole Board was authorized to consider whether Almonte would lead a law-abiding life if released, whether his release was compatible with society's welfare, and whether his release would deprecate the seriousness of his crime thereby undermining respect for the law. See Dkt. No. 10, Homer Report at 5. In its decisions denying parole, the Board repeatedly referenced Almonte's prior convictions for possession of a loaded weapon, cocaine sales and conspiracy, but never referred to facts outside the record of those convictions. Furthermore, the Board specifically considered legitimate factors that arose after its original decision admitting Almonte to parole; namely, a probation revocation, a new conviction while under parole supervision, and the fact that his prior incarceration failed to deter him from continuing criminal behavior. Id. Having reviewed the underlying record de novo, there is no factual support for Almonte's bald conclusion that the Parole Board considered impermissible factors when reaching its decisions. Accordingly, Judge Homer's conclusion that the Parole Board's decision was not arbitrary and capricious is correct, and Almonte's petition is denied.
For the reasons stated, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge David R. Homer, filed on June 1, 2005 is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated; and it is further
ORDERED, that this petition is DENIED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment in favor of defendant and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION AND ORDERFN1
HOMER, Magistrate J.
Petitioner Rafael Almonte ("Almonte") is currently an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) at Clinton Correctional Facility. Almonte pleaded guilty to conspiracy in the fourth degree on April 20, 2000 in Bronx Supreme Court and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of two to four years imprisonment. Due to a previous conviction, Almonte remains incarcerated serving a sentence of life imprisonment. Almonte now seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on the grounds that the decision denying him parole was arbitrary, capricious, and violated New York law, that the time from the decision on reconsideration was excessive, that the parole board denied his parole without justification, and that he was denied substantive due process when his request for parole was denied. For the reasons which follow, it is recommended that the petition be denied.
On October 17, 1989, Almonte was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree in Bronx Supreme Court and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of six years to life imprisonment. Resp't Answer (Docket No. 7), Ex. 2 at 3. On December 9, 1994, Almonte was released under parole supervision for life. Id. On December 19, 1996, Almonte was arrested for conspiracy to commit robbery and shoot a police officer. Id. at 5. On April 20, 2000, Almonte pleaded guilty to fourth degree conspiracy in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 105.10 and was sentenced to a indeterminate term of two to four years imprisonment. Id. at Ex. 1. As this conviction was a violation of parole, Almonte was required to complete the remainder of his sentence for the 1989 conviction of six years to life imprisonment.
Almonte appeared before the parole board in July 2000 and parole was denied. Resp't Answer at Ex. 4. On March 29, 2001, Almonte's appeal was granted because the Division of Parole was unable to locate the transcribed minutes of Almonte's July 2000 appearance. Almonte was thus scheduled to appear in April 2001 before the parole board. Id.
On April 10, 2001, Almonte re-appeared before the parole board and parole was again denied. Resp't Answer at Exs. 8, 11. On Almonte's appeal, this decision was affirmed on May 15, 2002.FN2 Id. at Ex. 13. On May 8, 2002, Almonte appeared before the parole board and parole was again denied. Id. at Ex. 12. Almonte's parole was again denied on May 10, 2004. Almonte's appeal of this decision was pending as of the date this petition was filed. Id. at Exs. 15, 16.
Almonte challenged the April 2001 denial of his parole in an Article 78 proceedingFN3 which was denied as moot due to Almonte's subsequent appearance before the parole board. Id. at Ex. 18. On March 7, 2003, Almonte filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 7001, which was denied. Id. at Ex. 19. Both of these decisions were affirmed by the Appellate Division. Almonte v. New York State Div. of Parole, 2 A.D.3d 1239, 768 N.Y.S.2d 861 (3d Dep't 2003). The New York Court of Appeals dismissed Almonte's appeal on March 25, 2004. Almonte v. New York State Div. of Parole, 2 N.Y.3d 758 (2004) This action followed.
A. Parole Denial
Respondent first contends that Almonte's petition is not cognizable because Almonte does not have a liberty interest in being released on parole.
The Supreme Court has held that since "there is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence, " due process safeguards in parole hearings are only required if the state's parole statute creates an expectation of liberty. Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979), Barna v. Travis, 239 F.3d 169, 170 (2d Cir.2001). Furthermore, the mere possibility of parole does not, by itself, create a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 11. The New York State parole scheme does not create a protected liberty interest. Barna, 239 F.3d at 171.
Almonte's challenge is therefore limited to whether he was denied parole for arbitrary or impermissible reasons. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 226, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976); Boddie v. New York State Div. of Parole, 288 F.Supp.2d 431, 440 (S.D.N.Y.2003). "[A]ll that the Board must do is (a) afford the inmate an opportunity to be heard and (b) if parole is denied, advise him [or her] of the reasons for its decision." Blackett v. Thomas, 293 F.Supp.2d 317, 319 (S.D.N.Y.2003). A review of the parole board's determination here does not reveal a violation of due process or state statute. Almonte had three parole hearings in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2004. Almonte was given an opportunity to be heard and written opinions providing the bases for the board's determinations at each. See Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 16.
Almonte contends that he should have been released on parole because he received an eligibility certificate and had served the minimum period of imprisonment. New York's parole statute vests broad discretion in the parole board when determining an inmate's release. N.Y. Exec. Law § 259-i(2)(c) (McKinney 2001). An inmate's institutional record must be considered by the board, but the board must also consider "if there is a reasonable probability that, if such inmate is released, he [or she] will live and remain at liberty without violating the law, and that his [or her] release is not incompatible with the welfare of society and will not so deprecate the seriousness of his [or her] crime as to undermine respect for law." N.Y. Exec. Law § 259-i(2)(c)(A). The "seriousness of [the inmate's] crime" is relevant both to the likelihood that the inmate will not be a danger to the community and to the independent requirement that early release not "deprecate the seriousness of his crime so as to undermine respect for law." Here, each time parole was denied, the parole board considered Almonte's previous convictions for possession of a loaded weapon and possession and sale of cocaine, that his probation was previously revoked, that he was under parole supervision at the time of the instant offense, and that prior incarcerations failed to deter him from continuing criminal behavior. Resp't Answer at Exs. 9, 12, 15. The factors considered here comply with New York law.
In ground two, Almonte contends that the twenty-four month wait for reconsideration was excessive. However, this is the period allowable by state law. N.Y. Exec. Law § 259 i(2)(a). In grounds three and four, Almonte also contends that the board considered charges that were dismissed when he pleaded guilty. The decision of the parole board in denying parole does not refer to the crimes that were dismissed and only refers to the conspiracy charge. Almonte has presented no evidence that the parole board's decision was based on factors other than those permitted by New York's statutory framework.
Therefore, the petition should be denied on its merits.
Respondent also argues in the alternative that Almonte's claim regarding the 2001 denial ofparole is moot in light of his reappearance before the parole board in 2002 and 2004. Almonte argues that the state court's review of the denial of parole is futile because he would be eligible for a new parole hearing before the state court's appeal is complete. Traverse (Docket No. 8) at 6.
There exists support for the proposition that a subsequent parole hearing renders moot a challenge to a prior hearing. Rodriguez v. Greenfield, No. 99 Civ 0532 (TPJ), 2002 WL 48440, at *4 (S.DN.Y. Jan. 10, 2002). However, other case law suggests that the issue in fact may not be moot and Almonte's argument that the state remedies are futile has been characterized as "potentially powerful." Boddie, 285 F.Supp.2d at 427-28; Defino v. Thomas, No. 02 Civ. 7413(RWS), 2003 WL 40502, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.2, 2003). However, this question need not be reached as Almonte articulates no due process violation. "Since [the] petition can easily be rejected on the merits, requiring submission of that petition to the state courts, with the likelihood that the same arguments will eventually be presented here in any event, would be a waste of the resources of both the state and federal courts." Brown v. Thomas, NO. 02 Civ 9257, 2003 WL 941940, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.10, 2003). Accordingly, it is recommended that respondent's argument on this ground not be addressed.
C. Independent and Adequate State Ground
Finally, respondent contends that Almonte has procedurally defaulted on all claims ...