The Honorable Eva n J. Walla ch, of the United State s Court of International Trade, sitting * by designation. 1 09-0468-pr Duemmel v. Fischer UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER Rul in gs by s um mar

y or der do no t h ave p r eced ent

ial ef fe ct . Cit ati onto a s um mar y or der filed on or after J anuary 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Fede ral Rule of Appella te Procedure 32. 1 an d thi s cou r t’ s Lo cal Rule 3 2.1 .1. Whencit in g a s um mar

y or der ina do cum ent

filedwith thi s court, a party must cite either the Federal A ppendix or an el ectronic data base (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any

party not r epr es ent ed b y co un s el. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, he ld at the Daniel Pa trick Moynihan United Sta tes Courthous e, 500 Pea rl Street, in the City of New Y ork, on the 3 day of March, two thousand and ten. rd PR E SE NT: J OS É A. C AB R ANES , B A R R I NGT ON D. P AR KER , Circuit Jud ges , E V A N J. W

ALL ACH , Judge

. *

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x T H O M AS D UEMMEL , and a ll others s imilarly situated,

Pl aint iff -A ppella nt ,
v. No. 09-0468-pr B R I A N F I S CHER , Commissioner, NYS Department of Cor r ect io nal Ser vic es , R O BERT D EN NI S ON , Cha irman of the New Yor k St ate Di

vis io n o f P ar ol e, Defenda nts-App ellees

, N E W Y O RK S T AT E D EPAR TM EN T O F C O RRECT I O NAL S ER VI CES , D A V I D P A T ER S ON , G ov er no r of th e St ate of

New Yor k, S US A N O’ C O NN ELL , Superintendent, Oneida Cor r ect io nal Fa cil it y, Defenda nts.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x2

F OR AP P ELLAN T: T ho mas Du emm el, pro se , Ro me, New Yor k. FOR APP ELL EES: Wa yne L. Benjamin, Office of the A ttorney General of the State of New Yor k, Alb any, New

Yor k. Appea l from a January 23, 2009 judg ment of the United States Distr ict Court for the Nor thern Di s tr ict of New Yor k ( T ho mas J . M cAvo y, Judge

). UPON CONSIDERAT ION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJ UDGED, AN D D ECREED that the ju dg me nt o f th e D ist ric t C ou rt i s AF F IRME D

. App ell ant T ho mas Du emm el ( “ap pellan t” ), pro se , appea ls fr om a judgment e ntered after the Di s tr ict Cou r t, act

in g sua sponte , dismiss ed appe llant’s complaint for failure to state a cla im upon whi ch r eli ef

can b e gr ant ed. See 28 U. S. C . § § 1 91 5( e) (2 )(B) , 1 91 5A . W e a ssum e t he pa rti es’ fa milia r it y with the u nd erlyi ng f

act s , the p r oce du r al his to ry of th e cas e, an d the i s s ues onapp eal.
W e r evie w a di stri ctco urt ’s sua sponte dismis sal of a complai nt de novo

. See McEachin v. Mc Gui nnis , 35 7 F .3d197 , 20 0 (

2dCir . 20 04) . Un der tak

in g that r evi ew, w e af

fi r m the D is tr

ict Cou r t’ s dismis sal of appella nt’s complaint.
Fi r s t, as th e Di s tr

ict Cou r t r eco gni zed , o ur

cas e law ho ld s th at N ew Yo r k’s par ol e s che me “ is not one that creates in any prisoner a leg itimate expe ctancy

of release,” a nd thus “plaintiffs have no lib er ty in te r es t i n p ar ol e, an d the p r ot ect io ns of th e Du e P r oce s s Clau s e ar e in app lic abl e.” Barna v. T rav is , 23 9 F .3d169 , 17 1 (

2dCir . 20 01) . I n any eve nt , “n othi ng i n the d ue p r oce s s con cep ts as th ey have thus far evolved . . . requires the Parole Board t o specify the particula r ‘evidence ’ in the in mat e’s file o r

at his in te r

vie w onwhi ch i t r es ts th e di s cr et io nar y de te r mi nat

io n that an i nm ate is no t r eady fo r con di ti on al r elea s e.” Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Correctio nal C

omplex , 44 2 U. S. 1, 1 5 ( 197 9) . Acc or di ngl

y, ap pellan t’ s du e pr oce s s clai m wi thr es pec t t o his denial of par ol e was correctly dismiss ed. Seco nd , tur ni ng t o ap pellan t’ s du e pr oce s s clai m r egar di ng his par ti cip ati onina s ex o ff end er tr eat men t p r ogr am, altho ughapp ell ant all egedth at the p r ogr am w as a r equ ir eme nt fo r par ol e eligibi lity, his clai m is not one in which the defenda nt’s actions “will inevi tably a ffect the duration of hi s s ent enc e.” Sand

in v. Conner

, 515 U.S. 4 72, 487 (1995). A ppella nt has not allege d that the pr ogr am c r eat es a pr es um pt io n o f p ar ol e r elea s e. F ur th er mo r e, the f act th at a pp ell ant

has bee n r epe ate dly de ni ed p ar ol e eve n af te r com pl et in g the p r ogr am b eli es any c lai m that hi s ti mel y enr ollm ent

inth e pr ogr am w ouldhav e ne ces s ar ily r es ul te d i n his earlie r

r elea s e. H e als o l acks standing to challe nge the remova l of other inmates fr om the program.3

Third, appellant’s equal protection c laims were properly dismiss ed eve n though those claims were not addressed by the District Court. Se e A CEqui p Ltd. v. A m. En

g’ g Co rp. , 31 5 F .3d151 , 15 5 (2 d Ci r . 20 03) (“ Ou r

cou r t m ay . . . af

fi r m the dis tr

ict cou r t’ s ju dgm ent

onany g r ou ndapp ear

in g in th e r eco r d, evenif

th e gr ou ndis di ff

er ent fr om th e on e r eli ed o n b y the dis tr ict cou r t. ”) . We h ave pr evi ou s ly h eldth at “ pr

is on er s either

inth e aggr egat e or

s pec if iedby o ff ens e ar e no t a s us pec t clas s .” Lee v. Governor o

f New York , 87 F.3d 55, 60 (2d C ir. 1996). In any eve nt, appella nt has not all egedany f

act s fr om whi ch i t c ouldbe i nf er r ed that enr ollm ent

inr equ ir ed p r ogr ams was del ayed for se x o ffe nd er s bu t no t ot he r in ma te s. Fo ur th , an y ex post facto

clai m ap pellan t c ouldbe c on s truedas r ais in g is fo r eclo s ed b y Ba rn a , 239 F. 3dat 1 71 ( “T he ExPo s t F act o Cl aus e do es no t ap ply t o gu id eli nes th at . . . a r e pr om ulgat ed simply to guide the parole boa rd in the exercise of its dis cretion.”). Finally, w e dec line to consider appel lant’s remaining a rguments, r aised for the fir st t ime on app eal, chal

len gin g the c on s ti tu ti on ali ty of New Yor k’s par ol e s che me a s a who le an d the p ar ol e bo ar d’ s con s id er ati onof

un changin g f

act or s s uchas th e natur e of th e of fe ns e. Se e Sing

le to n v. Wul ff , 428 U.S. 10 6, 120-21 (1976) (“It is the general rule . . . tha t a federal a ppella te court does not con s id er an i s s ue n ot

pas s ed u po n b elo w.” ).

CONCLUSI ON
Fo r th e f or ego in g r eas on s , the J anu ary 23 , 20 09 j ud gm ent of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t i s AF F IRME D

.
FOR THE C OU R

T, Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk of Court