Summary
The petitioner, an incarcerated individual, initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding to compel the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision to expunge two prison disciplinary guilt determinations from January 2024. The petitioner contended that because a prior administrative modification did not reduce his penalties, he should not have been charged with violating those penalties or creating disturbances. The Appellate Division, Third Department, ruled that mandamus is unavailable to challenge discretionary agency actions and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to relief, ultimately confirming the disciplinary determinations and dismissing the petition.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether petitioner has a clear legal right to mandamus relief to compel dismissal and expungement of the disciplinary determinations
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the mandamus petition
Holdings
- The court affirmed the disciplinary determinations and dismissed the petition; mandamus is unavailable because there is no clear legal right to the relief sought.
Key quotations
“The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is available to compel a governmental entity or officer to perform a ministerial duty, but does not lie to compel an act which involves an exercise of judgment or discretion, and it is only available when there is a clear legal right to the relief sought.”
Factual background
Petitioner Isiah Williams, an incarcerated individual, was found guilty of various disciplinary violations in October 2023 and received penalties. The October determination was partially modified in December 2023 without reducing penalties. In January 2024, Williams was charged with additional violations and penalties were imposed. He sought mandamus relief to dismiss and expunge the guilty determinations, arguing the penalties should have been reduced.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as moot after the administrative reversal of the October 2023 determination. The Appellate Division, Third Department, then addressed the merits of the mandamus petition.