Franza v. Stanford
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:18-cv-10892
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Franza v. Stanford, Judge Karas denied Dominic Franza’s request to reconsider dismissal of his civil-rights claims against parole officials.
Dominic M. Franza and the named New York State parole officials he sued; the court’s denial left the earlier dismissal and case closure unchanged.
What happened
In Franza v. Stanford, Dominic M. Franza, who was representing himself and was incarcerated, sued New York State parole officials under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that they violated the Fourteenth Amendment and Supreme Court precedent by failing to follow a New York parole regulation when denying parole.
The court had previously dismissed Franza’s claims and closed the case. Franza asked the court to reconsider, repeating his argument that the officials were performing mandatory, non-discretionary duties and therefore should not have absolute legal protection for judicial decisions. He also argued that the court overlooked a Supreme Court decision. The court rejected both arguments and stated that Franza identified no federally protected right to have a parole decision follow particular state procedures.
In Franza v. Stanford, Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Franza’s motion for reconsideration. The opinion did not change the earlier dismissal or case closure.
The detailed version
- Franza v. Stanford · No. 7:18-cv-10892
- Kenneth Karas
- Jan. 3, 2020
Background
Dominic M. Franza, representing himself, sued New York State Board of Parole Chairwoman Tina M. Stanford; Commissioners Erik Berliner, Charles Davis, Tyece Drake, Caryne Demosthenes, and Mare Coppola; and Chief Counsel Kathleen M. Kiley. The suit was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state officials for violating federal rights. Franza alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rule discussed in United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy.
On December 11, 2019, the court dismissed Franza’s claims and ordered the case closed. Franza then moved for reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3.
Arguments and Analysis
The court explained that reconsideration is available only in limited circumstances, such as an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or serious injustice. It is not an opportunity to repeat arguments already considered or present new arguments that could have been made earlier.
Franza repeated his argument that the defendants’ failure to identify the scale from which they departed violated a mandatory, non-discretionary scheme and meant they were not protected by absolute immunity. Absolute immunity is legal protection from suit for certain official actions. The court said it had already considered and rejected this argument for the reasons given in its earlier opinion.
Franza also argued that the court had overlooked United States v. Gaubert. The court rejected that contention, explaining that Gaubert concerned the liability of the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act and did not address absolute immunity for state officials acting in a judicial capacity.
The court further addressed Franza’s position that his complaint challenged only the defendants’ failure to record the parole denial in accordance with a New York regulation, rather than the denial of parole itself. The court said Franza was asserting a new constitutional interest in having a parole decision conform to state procedures. It concluded that state statutes and regulations do not, by themselves, create federally protected due-process rights to particular state procedures, and that violating state law alone does not establish liability under § 1983.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied Franza’s motion for reconsideration. The court relied both on the reasons in this opinion and on the reasons stated in its December 11, 2019 opinion and order. The provided opinion does not add a separate dismissal qualifier to the earlier dismissal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.