denying plaintiff relief despite the parole state board’s “mention” of a vacated assault conviction because “there [was] no evidence suggesting that the board would have reached a different decision had it not taken that conviction into consideration” and “plaintiff's [still-valid] conviction for murder ... arose out of the same facts as his assault conviction”
How later courts described this case
- denying plaintiff relief despite the parole state board’s “mention” of a vacated assault conviction because “there [was] no evidence suggesting that the board would have reached a different decision had it not taken that conviction into consideration” and “plaintiff's [still-valid] conviction for murder ... arose out of the same facts as his assault conviction”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DECISION AND ORDER
DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Eugene Pollard, appearing
pro se,
commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (“DOCS”), alleges that defendants Jeffrey Helf and John Huntzinger, both of whom at all relevant times were employed by DOCS as parole officers at Orleans Correctional Facility,
*334
violated plaintiffs constitutional rights by-stating to the New York State Board of Parole that plaintiff had been convicted of first-degree assault, despite plaintiffs having previously provided defendants with documentation showing that his assault conviction had been vacated and dismissed. Defendants have moved for summary judgment.
Defendants’ motion is granted. The undisputed facts show that defendants forwarded to the Parole Board the information that plaintiffs assault conviction had been vacated on appeal.
See
Dkt. # 14 Ex. C. The record also shows that the Parole Board was aware of that fact when it denied plaintiffs application for parole.
See
Dkt. # 14 Ex. D, Ex. E.
In addition, while the Parole Board, in denying parole, did mention plaintiffs assault conviction, Dkt. # 14 Ex. E at 8, there is no evidence suggesting that the board would have reached a different decision had it not taken that conviction into consideration. Rather, the Parole Board’s decision appears to have been based mostly on plaintiffs conviction for murder, which arose out of the same facts as his assault conviction, and which was affirmed in the same decision in which his assault conviction was vacated.
See People v. Pollard,
150 A.D.2d 397 , 540 N.Y.S.2d 829 (2d Dep’t 1989). In short, there is no factual support for plaintiffs claims.
CONCLUSION
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 13) is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.