STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. PAUL TIMMENDEQUAS (15-11-1377, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• observing that “[n]o inmate is entitled to parole; it is a discretionary decision reserved to the judgment of the parole board”
• “The first step in substantive due process analysis is to identify the constitutional right at stake.”’
• first quoting Southerland v. City of New York, 680 F.3d 127, 151 (2d Cir. 2012), and then quoting County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 840 (1998)
• “The interference with the . . . protected right must be so shocking, arbitrary, and egregious that the Due Process Clause would not countenance it even were it accompanied by full procedural protection.” (internal citation omitted)
• Francis v. Fiacco, 942 F.3d 126, 130 (2d Cir. 2019)
• “There is no penological justification for incarceration beyond a mandatory release date because ‘any deterrent and retributive purposes served by [the inmate’s] time in jail were fulfilled as of that date.’” (quoting Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1108 (3d Cir. 1989))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).