Dumschat v. Board of Pardons, State of Conn., s. 539
| Decision Date | 11 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | 540,Nos. 539,D,s. 539 |
| Citation | 593 F.2d 165 |
| Parties | David DUMSCHAT, Plaintiff-Appellee, James Brown, Stanley Czaja and James Shelton, Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BOARD OF PARDONS, STATE OF CONNECTICUT; and Richard K. Lublin (Chairman), Alvin Dozeman, Paul J. DuBissette, Members of the Board of Pardons, Defendants- Appellants. James BROWN, Stanley Czaja and James Shelton, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BOARD OF PARDONS, STATE OF CONNECTICUT; and Paul J. McQuillan (Chairman), Alvin Dozeman, Michael E. DuBissette, John Speziale, and Philip Tatoian, Members of the Board of Pardons, Defendants-Appellants. ockets 78-2124, 78-2125. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Stephen J. O'Neill, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hartford, Conn. (Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen. of the State of Connecticut, Hartford, Conn., of counsel), for defendants-appellants.
Stephen Wizner, New Haven, Conn. (Yale Legal Clinic, Dennis E. Curtis, Mary F. Keller, Alice Bussiere, Judith Resnik, New Haven, Conn., of counsel), for intervening plaintiffs-appellees.
Before KAUFMAN, Chief Judge, SMITH and OAKES, Circuit Judges.
On this appeal from a declaratory judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in a class action requiring a statement of reasons by the Connecticut Board of Pardons in case of denial of application for pardon by prisoners serving life terms, we affirm essentially for the reasons given by Judge Blumenfeld in his opinions below, 432 F.Supp. 1310 (D.Conn.1977), 462 F.Supp. 509 (D.Conn. 1978).
Although pardons at first glance might appear to be different from parole decisions, the Connecticut statutory authority given to the Board of Pardons and its integral part in parole decisions make the two processes similar. The argument by appellants that pardons are solely discretionary decisions of mercy, relying on Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256, 95 S.Ct. 379, 42 L.Ed.2d 430 (1974), is not well taken since Schick is based on the constitutional authority of the federal executive rather than on the processes of a statutory state board essentially determining the date of eligibility for consideration by another (parole) board.
Written statements of reasons for denial are part of the due process requirements surrounding parole decisions. Coralluzzo v. New York State Parole Board, 566 F.2d 375 (2d Cir. 1977), Cert. dismissed, 435 U.S. 912, 98 S.Ct. 1464, 55 L.Ed.2d 503 (1978); Zurak v. Regan, 550 F.2d 86 (2d Cir.), Cert. denied, 433 U.S. 914, 97 S.Ct. 2988, 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977); and Haymes v. Regan, 525 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1975). These cases are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, 79-1997
...and therefore that they have a right to a statement of reasons when commutation is not granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 593 F.2d 165 (CA2 1979). A petition for a writ of certiorari was filed, and we vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inm......
-
McLaughlin v. Bronson
...pardoning power resides in the executive. Dumschat v. Board of Pardons, 432 F.Supp. 1310, 1312 (D.Conn.1977) (Dumschat I ), aff'd, 593 F.2d 165 (2d Cir.1979), remanded, 618 F.2d 216 (2d Cir.1980), rev'd, 452 U.S. 458, 101 S.Ct. 2460, 69 L.Ed.2d 158 (1981). In Connecticut, the pardoning powe......
-
Dumschat v. Board of Pardons, State of Conn.
...process right to written statements from the state Board of Pardons explaining the denial of their applications for pardon. See 593 F.2d 165 (2d Cir. 1979). The Supreme Court vacated our judgment, 442 U.S. 926, 99 S.Ct. 2854, 61 L.Ed.2d 294 (1979), and remanded for reconsideration in light ......
-
Connecticut's Most Memorable "good for Nothing Rascal" in This "land of Steady Habits"
...204 McLaughlin v. Bronson, 206 Conn. 267 (1988)(citing Dumschat v. Board of Pardons, 432 F. Supp. 1301, 1312 (D. Conn. 1977), aff'd, 593 F.2d 165 (2d Cir. 1979), remanded, 618 F.2d 216 (2d Cir. 1980), rev'd, 452 U.S. 458 (1981)). 205 Palka v. Walker, 124 Conn. 121, 122-23 (1938). 206 James ......