Artway v. Pallone
Decision Date | 29 October 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 80-1980,80-1980 |
Citation | 672 F.2d 1168 |
Parties | ARTWAY, Alexander A., Appellant, v. PALLONE, Nathaniel J., Ph.D., Personally and As Chairman of The New Jersey Special Classification Review Board; And Frederick Rotgers, Personally And As Director of Psychological Services at Rahway State Prison. . Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) on |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Alexander A. Artway, appellant pro se.
James R. Zazzali, Atty. Gen. of New Jersey, Andrea M. Silkowitz, Deputy Atty. Gen., Trenton, N. J., for appellees; J. Michael Blake, Deputy Atty. Gen., Trenton, N. J., of counsel.
David Ferleger, Philadelphia, Pa., amicus curiae.
Before ADAMS, VAN DUSEN and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
This appeal challenges a June 1980 final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, dismissing a civil rights complaint 1 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials under the 1871 Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1985). The judgment was based on a record consisting of the pleadings, affidavits, and answers to interrogatories. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we will affirm the above judgment.
This action arises out of plaintiff's May 1971 conviction of sodomy based on a jury verdict of the defendant's guilt and the subsequent determination by the trial and sentencing judge that (1) his conduct was characterized by a pattern of repetitive, compulsive behavior, and (2) violence was used in the commission of the offense. Although plaintiff contends that he did not commit sodomy, that any actions by him in relation to the victim were not done forcibly or with violence, and that the victim consented to all actions by all three male defendants on the November 1968 date of the crime, 2 the testimony of the victim in the transcript of plaintiff's May 1971 criminal trial does not support such contentions. The transcript of that trial, during which he was found guilty of sodomy beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury, contains testimony by the victim that the actions of the defendants were violent and that she did not consent to them. 3 These assaults on her person by the defendants, as stated in her testimony, included sodomy committed by plaintiff who was a defendant in that criminal proceeding. See, for example, N.T. 42-48, 92-110, 116 & 132, State v. Artway, et al., New Jersey Superior Court, Criminal Law Division, Indictment No. I-311-68, Transcript of May 1971 trial, and June 24, 1971 Transcript containing ruling of the trial judge denying motion for new trial at N.T. 12-13. On appeal, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, after reviewing the trial court record, concluded that the jury was justified in finding that "the act of sodomy was performed" and would have been justified in finding that the act was committed "forcibly against her will" were force an element of the offense. See State v. Artway, No. A.2817-74, Opinion of March 20, 1978, p. 3.
At the sentencing proceeding on March 27, 1975, 4 the trial judge stated:
Transcript of March 27, 1975, proceedings at Mount Holly, N. J., Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County, Criminal Division, No. I-311-68, pp. 6-10. 5
Plaintiff was sentenced at the March 27, 1975, proceeding to an indeterminate term with a 20-year maximum. 6 At that time, N.J.S.A. 2A:164-8 contained these terms:
The Supreme Court of New Jersey has interpreted the statutory scheme contained in the above-quoted N.J.S.A. 2A:164-3 et seq. (see footnote 4 and N.J.S.A. 2A:164-8 quoted in the text above), in State v. Clark, 65 N.J. 426, 323 A.2d 470, 472-75 (1980), as follows:
(Footnotes omitted.)
The complaint seeks
(a) declaratory relief holding that defendants 7 have violated the constitutional 8 and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Friedland v. Fauver
...habeas petition) Schafer v. Moore, 46 F.3d 43 (8th Cir.1995) (barring inmate's challenge to state denial of parole); Artway v. Pallone, 672 F.2d 1168, 1178 (3d Cir.1982) (finding that inmate's challenge to parole ineligibility under sex offender act is cognizable only in a habeas corpus pet......
-
Artway v. Attorney General of NJ
...28, 1995 to the close of business on March 3, 1995. 1 Between 1971 and 1975 plaintiff was a fugitive from justice. Artway v. Pallone, 672 F.2d 1168, 1170 n. 4 (3d. Cir.1982). 2 Title 2C, enacted pursuant to Gerald v. Commission, New Jersey Department of Corrections, 102 N.J. 435, 508 A.2d 1......
-
Artway v. Attorney General of State of N.J., 95-5157
...but the judge found that he had used violence and, as a result, sentenced him to an indefinite term in prison. See Artway v. Pallone, 672 F.2d 1168, 1170-71 & n. 3 (3d Cir.1982). 1 In addition, based in part on a prior statutory rape conviction, the judge made a finding for sentencing purpo......
-
Otey v. Hopkins
..."is wholly a matter of executive discretion"), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1034, 109 S.Ct. 849, 102 L.Ed.2d 980 (1989); Artway v. Pallone, 672 F.2d 1168, 1180-81 (3rd Cir.1982) (standards for parole eligibility do not trigger Due Process protections). 2 Since Otey's claims are not the proper sub......