Patterson v. Ludlow

ATES DISTR]

ES ep Cop

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SD PN

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FEB 10 2021

4 +

OE West *OEWENGUT □□□

EMMANUEL PATTERSON, BN DisTRIC

Plaintiff,

V. 17-CV-1068 (JLS)

G. KEVIN LUDLOW, S. GAULT,

JULIE SMITH, ELLEN ALEXANDER,

WALTER WM. SMITH, TINA M.

STANFORD, ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI,

STEPHEN MAHER,

Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Emmanuel Patterson filed this action on October 23, 2017.

Dkt. 1. During screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(a), the Court!

dismissed all of Patterson’s claims, except his equal protection claim for race-based

disparate treatment during his parole hearing. See Dkt. 5, at 9-12.

That claim proceeded to service. Dkts. 8, 9. In response, Defendants moved

to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and

12(b)(6). Dkt. 11. Patterson sought, and obtained, an extension until October 7,

2019 to respond to Defendants’ motion. Dkts. 138, 14. But he did not respond by

that date and did not seek an extension.

1 Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo previously was assigned to this case and issued this

decision and order. See Dkt. 5. On January 6, 2020, this case was reassigned to the

undersigned. Dkt. 15.

On April 30, 2020, this Court ordered Patterson to respond to Defendants’

motion by May 18, 2020. Dkt. 16. The Court also warned Patterson “that his

failure to respond to the motion to dismiss may result in the dismissal of his action

with prejudice,” and informed him that it would proceed to decide the motion after

May 18, 2020, regardless whether Patterson responded. Jd. To date, Patterson has

not responded.

For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

DISCUSSION

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Unopposed Motions .

When presented with an unopposed motion, the Court “may not find for the

moving party without reviewing the record and determining whether there is

sufficient basis for granting the motion.” See Haidon v. Budlong & Budlong, LLC,

318 F. Supp. 3d 568, 574-75 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (internal quotations and citation

omitted). For unopposed motions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b),

the Court “must review the merits of the motion and determine whether the

[moving party] carried its burden.” See Anderson v. Pedalty, No. 14-CV-00192, 2015

WL 1735192, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 16. 2015) Gnternal quotations and citation

omitted).

And where disposition of an unopposed motion involves a pro se litigant, the

Court will construe pleadings liberally and interpret them to “raise the strongest

arguments that they suggest.” Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1996)

(internal quotations and citation omitted).

B. Motions Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)

A district court properly dismisses claims for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when it lacks the statutory or constitutional power

to adjudicate them. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); Makarova v. United States, 201

F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 2000). The party asserting subject-matter jurisdiction “has

the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it exists.” Makarova,

201 F.3d at 113.

To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6), a plaintiff must allege facts that—accepted as true—are sufficient 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)). The

complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, but “at a bare minimum ...

the plaintiff [must] provide the grounds upon which his claim rests through factual

allegations sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Yang

Zhao v. Keuka Coll., 264 F. Supp. 3d 482, 490 (W.D.N.Y. 2017) (quoting Goldstein v.

Pataki, 516 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir. 2008)).

Where a defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and on other

grounds, the court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) challenge first. See, e.g.,

Frederick v. State, 232 F. Supp. 3d 326, 331 (W.D.N.Y. 2017) (‘A motion questioning

the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction must be considered before other challenges

since the Court must have jurisdiction before it can properly determine the merits

of a claim.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

II. THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION OVER PATTERSON’S CLAIM

A. Request for Money Damages

Among other relief, Patterson seeks compensatory damages from Defendants

for the additional time he spent in prison after being denied release on parole. See

Dkt. 1, at 39-40. Because Patterson’s remaining claim is against parole board

commissioners who conducted his hearing and denied him parole, absolute

immunity precludes the money damages he seeks.

Parole board officials “are entitled to absolute immunity from suit for

damages when they serve a quasi-adjudicative function in deciding whether to

grant, deny[,] or revoke parole.” Montero v. Travis, 171 F.3d 757, 761 (2d Cir.

1999). Courts “take a functional approach” to determining whether an official acted

in an adjudicative role and consider “‘the nature of the responsibilities of the

individual official.” Id. (quoting Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 198, 201 (1985)).

Absolute immunity applies to judicial functions, even where the action at issue

allegedly “was in error” or “was done maliciously,” or where the plaintiff alleges that

the defendant was biased against him. Jd. (quoting Fields v. Soloff, 920 F.2d 1114,

1119 (2d Cir. 1990)) Gnternal quotations omitted).

As construed by the Court, Patterson’s remaining claim alleges that parole

board commissioners treated him differently than similarly situated prisoners

because of his race when deciding whether to grant or deny parole. See Dkt. 1, at 5,

31-34; Dkt. 5, at 9-11. In other words, Patterson challenges the parole board

commissioners’ conduct in deciding whether to grant him parole. This conduct is

“precisely the type to which absolute immunity . .. applifes].” See Trueluck v. N.Y.

State Bd. of Parole, No. 9:08-CV-1205 (GLS/DEP), 2010 WL 1268028, at*11

(N.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2010). Thus, Defendants have absolute immunity from

Patterson’s equal protection claim for money damages, and the Court lacks

jurisdiction over that aspect of his claim.

B. Request for Declaratory or Injunctive Relief

The Court previously held that “insofar as Patterson seeks an unbiased

parole hearing, his equal protection claim survives screening.” Dkt. 5, at 11. The

Court now must consider whether an equal protection claim by Patterson for

“declaratory relief[] and injunctive relief seeking an unbiased parole board panel”

survives Defendants’ motion to dismiss, in light of Patterson’s intervening release

on parole. See id. at 11 n.4.

Article III of the United States Constitution limits the Court’s jurisdiction to

“cases” and “controversies.” U.S. Const. art. ITI, § 2. To satisfy this case-or-

controversy requirement, “a party must, at all stages of the litigation, have an

actual injury which is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.”

United States v. Blackburn, 461 F.3d 259, 261 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotations

and citation omitted). If, due to an intervening event, this requirement is no longer

satisfied, the “case becomes moot.” See United States v. Mercurris, 192 F.3d 290,

298 (2d Cir. 1999). At that point, “it [is] impossible for the court to grant any

effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party, [and the court] must dismiss the

case.” Blackburn, 461 F.3d at 261 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

The party asking the Court to exercise its jurisdiction has the burden of

“clearly .. . alleg[ing] facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke

judicial resolution of the dispute.” Id. (quoting Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 11

(1998)) Gnternal quotations omitted). .

As the Court explained in its earlier decision and order, the only relief

available to Patterson here is injunctive or declaratory relief in the form of a new

parole hearing before unbiased parole board commissioners. See Dkt. 5, at 11 & n.4;

see also id. at 6 (explaining limitations of relief in Section 1983 actions, as compared

to relief available in habeas corpus actions). Patterson was released on parole on

October 11, 2018. See DEP’T OF CoRR. & CMTY. SUPERVISION, Inmate Lookup,

http://nysdoccslookup.doces.ny.gov (last visited Feb. 9, 2021).2 And he did not

respond to Defendants’ motion, despite multiple extensions of time and a reminder

to do so. See Dkts. 14, 16.

In light of Patterson’s release and failure to offer any allegations of continued

harm or to form a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction in response to Defendants’

motion, his equal protection claim is moot. See, e.g., Gomez v. Alexander, No. 08

Civ. 8800 (RMB) (KNF), 2010 WL 1257381, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2010)

(dismissing as moot equal protection claim based on denial of parole, where plaintiff

received a new hearing because he “received the remedy that he sought, 1.e., a

2 One can search for Patterson’s release status by entering his DIN: 79-B-1572.

(re)appearance before the Parole Board, and he fail[ed] to allege that (another)

appearance would be likely to remedy any injury that may remain”) (internal

citation omitted); Trueluck, 2010 WL 1268028, at *5 (holding that “in light of

plaintiffs release from prison, his claim for injunctive relief no longer presents a

live controversy,” and noting that plaintiff was “no longer in a position to benefit

from the relief sought . . . since he ha[d] already been paroled”). Because a

favorable decision from this Court would not redress the harm that Patterson

alleges, his remaining claim is dismissed.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt.

11) and dismisses Patterson’s complaint (Dkt. 1). The Clerk of Court shall close this

case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2021

Buffalo, New York

/ A. ‘

JOHN L. SINATRA, JRO———

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE