## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 4153 S TEPHANI E B OWEN S, e tal ., P la intif fs-A pp ellees , v. P AT Q UI NN, Gover noro fI l l i noi s, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 CV 04915

—Jo an B. G ott schall, Judge
.
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 17, 2009

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 2, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . P O S NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Ar t i c l e V , s e c t i o n 1 2 , o ft he I l l i noi s Const i tuti on pro vi des that“the Gover norm ay g r an t r epr i ev es , c o m m ut at i o ns a nd pa r do ns , a fte r c o nvi cti on, f oral l o ff enses o n such te rm s a s he thi nks proper . The m anner ofapply i ng the re f orm ay be re gul ate d by l aw . ” An I l l i noi s s tatute establ i shes proce du re s f orthe exer ci se ofthis pow ero fexec uti ve c lem en c y, an d p ro vid es th at th ou gh “n ot h in g in th is2 N o. 08

- 4153 [ st atut e] s ha l l b e co ns tr ue d t o l i m i t th e po wer o fthe Gov e r no r u nd e r the c o ns t i t ut i o n t o g r a nta r e pr i eve , c om m u ta tio n of se n te n c e, or p ar d on , . . . th e G ov er n or sh all dec i de ea cha ppl i ca ti o n. ” 73 0 I L C S 5 /3- 3- 13 ( d) , ( e)

. The appell ees , w ho w er e the pla i nti ff s i n the distric t c ourt, ar e tw elve Il l i noi sans w ho fi l ed peti ti ons f orexec uti ve cle m e n cy bet w een 2003 an d 2005. Originall y the re w ere j us t ni ne pl aint i ff s. Butthe n- Gov erno r Bl agoj ev i ch, the o r i g i na l de f en dan t, whi l e hi s m o ti o n to d is m i ss the sui t was pending, gr anted o ne o fthe peti ti ons and denied e i g h t, w h e r e u p o n the pl a i n t i ff s a me n d e d th e i r c o mpla i nt to add three n ew pl ai nti ff s, wh ose peti ti ons f or ex ec ut i ve c l emenc y ha d no t be ena ct ed o n. It m ig h t seem that the ca se w ou ld be m oot w ith regard to the ni ne pl ai nti ff s whose pet itio ns were acte d on, si nce th e onl y r el i efthe y s ee ki s ani nj unc ti o n r equi r i ngthe gov e r no r t o de c i de wi thin a r e a s o nab l e t i me whe ther to g r an t a par do n tha t ha s be en a p p l i ed f o r . Butthe sit u at ion of th e e igh t w h os e a p p lica tio n s w er e d en ied is si m i l arto thato fa preg nant wom an wh o chal l enges an a b o r t i o n l a w a nd b y the t i me the c a s e i s r e a dy t o de c i de ha s g i ve n b i r th

. Herc as e i s “c apabl e o fr epe ti ti o n [ sh e m ay beco m e pr egnant aga i n], ye t e vadi ng r evi ew , ” Roe v. Wade, 41 0 U.S

. 11 3, 124- 25 ( 1973 ) , quoti ng So uth ern Pac i f i cTe r min al Co

. v . I CC, 21 9 U.S

. 49 8, 51 5 ( 1911 ) ; se e al so Weinste i n v. B rad fo rd, 42 3 U.S

. 14 7, 14 8- 49 ( 1975 ) ( per curi am ) , and on thi s g ro un d is h eld notto be m oo t. The si tuati on of the ei ght pla i nti ff s i s si m i l ar be cause each o fthe m ca n fi l e a n e w pe t i t i o n f o r e xe c ut i ve clem en cy after a year has elapsed from the d e n ial of a p revi ous o ne, 73 0 I LC S 5/3- 3- 13( a- 5) , and thus wouldN o. 08

- 4153 3 f ace the pr ospecto fhavi ng the i r next sui t rend er ed m oo t by anothe r prom pt denia l

. Eventual l y they woul d be exhausted fro m r epeate d futi le su i ts and w oul d gi ve up , and the gov er n orco uld then r esum e hi s a l l ege d po l i cyo f“ po ck etv et o i ng ” cl emenc y pe ti ti o ns . W e co ncl ud e that o nl y the cl ai m o fthe pla i nti ffwh ose cl em ency peti ti on was gr anted i s m oo t. T h e p l a i n tiffs co n te n d th at by failin g t o a c t o n th eir peti ti ons w i thi n a r eas onable ti m e, the gov er nor s hav e v i o l a t e d t he due pr o c e s s cl a us e o fthe F o ur t e e nth Am e nd

m ent. The di str i ct c ourtr efused to dism iss the c ase , p recipitatin g this interlocut ory a p p eal. 2 8 U

. S. C

. § 1292(b). W e th i nks he s ho ul d ha ve di smi ssed th e ca se ; the pl aint i ff s h a v e n o g o o d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c l a i m. There is no Fo urte enth Am endm ent pr oper ty orl iber ty in te re st in o b ta in in g a p a r d o n in Illin ois

— no s ubstanti ve e nt i t l e men t, i n o the r wo r ds

— an d so no groun d for a cl ai m of denia l of du e proce ss. This w ell- est abl i shed p rin c ip le of c on st itu tio n al la w , O l i m v. Waki ne kona , 461 U

. S. 2 3 8 , 2 50 -51 (19 83 ); Vi l l a n o v a v . A b r a ms , 9 7 2 F

. 2 d 7 9 2 , 79 8 ( 7th Ci r . 1992), was a ppl i ed to pa r do ns i n Conne ct i cu t Boardof Par dons v. D um s ch at, 452 U

. S. 458, 464 (1981 ), w here t h e Cour t poi nted out that “a deci si on wh etherto com m u te a l ong- ter m se ntence gener al l y depends not si m ply on obj ecti ve f actfi nd i ng, but al so on pu re ly su bj ecti ve eval u at ion s a nd o n predi cti ons offuture behavi or by thos e e ntrust ed w i th the deci si on. A co m m utati on d ecision the refore shares som e of th e ch aract eris tics of a deci si on w hetherto grantp ar ol e. S ee Gre e nhol tz [ v. Inm a tes o f Nebrask a P ena l & C o r r ectio na l C o m plex , 44 2 U.S

. 1, 9- 104 N o. 08

- 4153 ( 19 79 ) ]

. F arfr o m s uppo r tinga n ‘ en ti tl ement, ’ G re enholtz th er efo r e co m pel s th e co nc l us i o n tha t ani nm at e ha s ‘ no c on st itu tio n al or in h er en t rig h t’ t o c om m u ta tio n of h is sente nce. ” ( To the sa m e e ff ect, se e O hio Ad u lt Pa role A uth o rity v . Wo o da rd, 5 2 3 U. S

. 2 7 2 ( 1 9 9 8 ) , a nd Wor atze ckv. A rizon a B oard of Ex ec utiveClem ency, 11 7 F

. 3d 400, 40 3- 04 (9t h C ir. 19 97 ).) Th e Illino is go ve rn or ’s p ow er of p ar d on is ple nary ; no substa nti ve l i m i tat i on is im posed by the s tat e c on st itu tio n o r b y an y ot h er s ou rc e of st at e law . C f. M iller v. He nm an , 804 F.2d 42 1, 42 4-2 5 (7 th C ir. 19 86 ); H ugg i ns v. Isenba rger, 798 F.2d 203 , 206 (7th C ir. 1986) (per cu riam ). T h e p l a i n t i ff s t r y t o s i d e s t e p D um s ch atby ar gui ng tha t th eya r e cl ai m i nga n e nt itl em en t no t to a pa r do n b ut m er el y t o a r eas onabl y pr om pt deci si on o n th eir appli catio n, w h ich th ey co n te n d is a re al “en tit lem en t” b ec au se it invokes a statu tory com m an d ( t h e G overn or shall de c i de whethe r t o g r an t t he par do n) r athe r tha n mer el y s ee k i ng an exer ci se of uncanal i zed disc re ti on. Bu t the onl y rea son th ey want a dec i si o n i s th at i t i s th ei r o nl y ho pe o fg et ting a par don, and i ftheyo btai ned a par don i t wou l d not se cur e ani nt er es t pr o te ct ed bythe due pro ce ss cl au se . The gr ant o fa pardon m ust not be co nfuse d w i th r est or ati on o f f r ee do m . The pl aint i ff s co m pl et ed th ei r s en te nc es l o ng ag o. T h ey w an t p ar d on s b ec au se th ey h av e t ro u b le fin d in g a n d h old in g jobs , an d th ey h av e t h at tro u b le bec au se th ey ha ve to tellem p lo y ers, ifthe em p loyers as k, tha t th eya r e f el o ns . Thi s qua nda r y w o ul d be r el ev an t to th eir qu est for j obs (includ ing p rom otions) only i f a pardon would w i pe the sl ate cl ean, endi ng the i r sta tus a s f e l o n s . I n g e n e r a l th a ti s n o tt r u e , at l e a s ti n I l l i n o i s . “ [ A] par do n i m pl i es g ui l t; i t do es no t o bl i te r at e th e f ac t o ftheN o. 08

- 4153 5

c om m iss ion of th e c rim e a n d th e c on vic tio n th er eo f.” Talar i co v. D unl ap , 68 5 N

. E. 2d 32 5, 3 27( I l l

. 1 99 7)

. “ ‘ The gr anti ng o fa pardon does not expun ge the r eco rd [ of convi cti on]

. ’ ” Peop l ev. Gl i s s on , 372 N .E .2d 66 9, 6 7 0 (Ill. 1978 ) , quoti ng the I l l i noi s Cl em ency Rules Book

. The g o ve r no r c an, i t i s tr ue , g r an t a p ardontha t ex pl i ci tl y a utho r i ze s ex pung ementof th e appl i ca nt ’ s co nvi ct i o n upo n appl i ca ti o n to a co ur t, 20 I LCS 26 30 /5( c) , a nd th e g r a n to fth e a p p l i c a t i o n w o ul d b a r p r o s p e c t i v e e mpl o y er s f r o m c o ns i der i ngthe e xpung ed co nv i ct i o n, 20 I LC S 2630 /1 2( a)

. B ut the cour t t o w hi ch the appli cati on f orexpungem ent i s m ade afterthe gov er n or ac ts i s no t re quir ed to gr ant i t; the appli cati on i s m er el y a requ est th at th e c ou rt exerc ise discretion in th e ap p li can t’s f avor. P eop le v. Ho w a rd, 2009 W L 71112 1 (I ll

. M ar. 19, 2009). Anyway the pl aint i ff s do n’ t te l l us whether th eys o ug ht such a pard on , a s they coul d have done by checki ng a box o n the appli cati on f or m , ww w . sta te. i l

. us/prb/ docs/ c lem p et itio n .p d f (vis ite d M ar . 20 , 20 09 ), or so u gh t m er ely the no rm alge nera l pardon, wh i ch does not lead to ex p un gem e n t . T h ere are also pard ons based on a d etermi n a t i o n th a tth e a p p l i c a n tw a s i n n o c e n to fth e c r i me of w h ich h e w as co n vic te d , Peop l ev. Chi appa , 36 8 N

. E.2 d 925, 92 6- 927 ( I l l

. A pp . 19 77) , but ou r p lai nti ff s do not c l a i m t o h a v e b e e n i n n o c e n t, s o we n e e d n o t c o n s i d e r t he effect ofsuc h a p ard on eith er. A nd tho ugh havi ng a c rim i nalr eco rd does r educe a perso n’s j ob opportunit i es by i m pai ri ng hi s r eputati on f orgo od char acte r, r ep utati on i s no t a pro pertyo r l iber ty i nter estwithi n the m eani ng o fth e d u e proces s6 N o. 08

- 4153

c lau se s o f th e fe d er al C on st itu tio n . Sieg ert v. G illey, 5 00 U

. S. 226, 233- 35 ( 1991 ) ; P aul v. D avis , 424 U

. S. 693, 710-12 (1976 ); B rown v. City of M ichigan C ity, 462 F.3d 720, 729-32 (7th Cir. 20 06 ); M o srie v. B a rry, 718 F.2d 115 1, 1 1 5 8-62 (D.C

. Cir. 19 83 )

. Even if it wer e, thi s woul d no t he l p the pl ainti ff s be cause they don’tco ntestthe convi cti ons that i nj ured the i r re pu tat i ons, a n d thi s i m pli es that they had i n thei r cri m i nal pro ceedi ngs a dequ ate pro cess to try to p r o t e c tth e i r r e p u t a t i o ns f r o m b e i n gs u l l i e d b y a c r i mi na l c o nv i ct i o n. The y do no t c l a i m t o b e s e e k i ng pa r do ns i n o r der to re m ove st atuto rydi sabi l i ti es, ei ther, such a s the r i ght t o vote or to hold pu bli c office; anyw ay m ost stat ut ory disabi l i ti es re sul ti ng fro m a f el ony convi cti on ar e r est or ed au tom aticall y u p o n th e com p leti on of the d efend an t’s sente nc e, s ee M ar g ar etCo l g at e Lo ve , “ Re l i effr o m the C olla te ra l C on se q u en c es of a C rim in al C on vic tio n (Ill inoi s) , ” J anuar y2 0 0 7, www. s e nt e nc ing pr oj e c t
. o r g/t m p/Fi l e/ Col l ate ra l % 20Consequence s/I l l inoi s( 2)

. pd f( vi si ted M ar . 20, 2009 ) , and others can be r est or ed by adm i ni str ati ve fi at. Se e, e. g. , 73 0 I LC S 5/5- 5. 5- 5 et seq
. A nd wh i l e a r equi re m ent o fpro m pt acti on on a peti ti on f o r a pa r do n may so m et i m es b en efi t th e appl i ca nt, i fthe al ter nati ve w oul d b e a pock et vet o, i t i s no t a s ub s t ant i ve enti tl em ent; other w i se any t i m e a st ate o ffi ci alf ai l ed to act w i thi n a pr es c rib ed per i od ofti m e he w oul d be deem ed to have vi ol ate d the federa l Consti tuti on. That can not be correct, as only su bsta nt ive en titl em en t s are prot ecte d by the due pro cess cl auses . U nl ess co m pli ance w ith a proc eduralr equi re m ent s ecure s a subst anti veN o. 08

- 4153 7

e nt i t l e men t, the f a i l ur e t o c o mpl y wi th i tdo e s n o ti nv a de ani nt er es t pr o te ct ed bythe due pr o ce ss c l au ses . “ The executi ve’ s cl em ency author i ty w oul d c ea se to be a m at te r of gr ac e c om m itt ed to th e e x ec u tiv e a u th or ity if it w er e co nstr ai ned by the so rto fpro ceduralr equi re m ents that re spondent urg es. ” O hio Ad ult P aroleAutho ri ty v. Wo o da rd, sup ra , 52 3 U.S

. at28 5. W e do not eve n thi nk tha t the I l l i noi s s tatute cr eat es a requ i r emento fpr o m pt, o ri nde ed o fa ny, a ct i o n b y the go ve rn or on a c l e m e n c y p et itio n . Th e s ta tu te m er ely describes ste ps i n the sequence of proce du re s i n cl em ency m atter s. T here i s fi rs t the peti ti on, then consi derat i on o f i t bythe Pri sone r Revi ew Boar d, then “the Governor s h a l l d ec id e e ac h ap p lica tio n an d co m m u n ica te h is d ec isi o n t o the Bo ar d whi ch sh allno ti fy the pe ti ti o ne r, ” an d ther e a re further steps afterthat

. 73 0 I LC S 5/3- 3- 13. U nl ess and unti l the go vernordeci des the appli cati on and com m unica tes hi s d ecis i on t o the Boa rd, the further s t e ps a r e p r e t e r mi t t e d. I fthi s i s wro nga nd the s ta tu te do es r equir e th e gov er norto m ake a deci si on, st i l l, i t doe s no t speci fy a tim e lim it. It m igh t s ee m th at a “r ea so n ab le” ti m e c ou ld be i m pli ed, as i s done i n contr acts thatdo notspeci fy a d ea d lin e fo r p er for m an c e. E

. A l lan Fa rn sw or th , C ontract s § 3.2 8, p . 205 (4t h ed . 200 4); R es tate m ent( Second) of Co ntracts § 2 04 , com m en t d (19 81 ); R ose v. M avrakis , 79 9 N

. E.2 d 46 9 (Ill. A p p . 200 3); M eye r v . M a ri lyn M igli n, Inc. , 65 2 N

. E.2 d 1 233, 1239 ( I l l

. A pp . 1995 )

. Bu t w e have n o idea w hat a “r eas onabl e” ti m e fo r deci ding a cl em ency pe tit ion w oul d be. I t would depend on the num bero f8 N o. 08

- 4153 peti ti ons, wh i ch m ust v ar y fro m ye arto ye ar( w e hav e d at a o nl y f o r 20 05 , when 71 3 cl emenc y pet i ti o ns w ere fi l ed; the go ve rno r gr anted 1 and denied 31 , and so 68 1 w er e l eft undeci ded ) , and on the o therta sks be sid es re vi ew i ng r eco m m endati ons f orcle m ency f or w ar ded to hi m by the Pri sone r Revi ew Board to w hi ch a gov ernor mus ta t t e nd

. E x ec u tiv e c lem en c y is a cla ss ic e x am p le of u n re vie w ab le executi ve disc re ti on be cause i t i s o ne o fthe tr adit i onal ro yalpre ro gat i ves ( al ong w i th rece i vi ng fo re i gn am bass adors and co m m anding the a rm ed f or ces) bo rr owed by r e pu b l i c a n g o v e r nme nt s f o r b e s t o wa l o n the he a d o f go ve rn m en t. U .S. C on st ., ar t. II, § 2, c l. 1; Sc hic kv. R eed, 41 9 U .S. 25 6, 26 0-6 6 (1 97 4); Ex par t eGr os s m an , 26 7 U.S

. 87, 108- 10 ( 1925 ) ; J ohn H ar ri son, “Par don as Prer oga ti ve, ” 1 3 Fed. Se nte ncing Rptr

. 14 7 ( 2001 ) ( “se eing the par don po wer a s a bi t o fthe r o y alpr er o g at i ve dr o pped i nt o o ur gener al l y l aw -bound consti tuti onalsy st em pro vi des a perspe c ti ve on the actual and possibl e functi ons ofthat pow er ”)

. W e there f or e ba l k a t the i dea offe d er al j ud ges ’ set ti ng ti m etab les f oract i on o n cl em ency peti ti ons by sta te gov er nor s. A nd wh at sancti on co uld a federa l co urt i m pose f or noncom pli ance with an y “ re aso nabl e t i m e” deadli ne that the c ourtm i ght set? W oul d i t be to gr ant the par don? I fso , th e govern or’s offi ce w ou ld be ove r w h e lm ed

. Ev ery f el on i n the sta te w oul d a pp l y f or a pardon kno w i ng tha t, wi th a l l a p p l y i n g, th e g o v e r n o r ’ s o ffi c e , o v e r wh e l med , w oul d be unabl e t o proce ss the a pp l i cati ons w i th in the de a dl i ne s e t b y the c o ur t, a nd s o the y wo ul d beN o. 08

- 4153 9 gr anted by def aul t. Fe d er al c ourt s hav e r un pri sons, schoo l sys tem s, pol i ce and fi re departm ents, an d ot her st at e an d l o cal a gen ci es f o und t o ha ve e ng ag ed i n un co nsti tuti onalco nd uct. But f ora f ed eralco urt to run a gov ernor’s p ard on sys tem w ou ld be a step too f ar. The r ul i ngb y the di st r i ctc our t i s r ev er se d wi thi nstr ucti ons to dism i ss the s uitwith pr ej ud i ce. R EVER S ED
.

4- 2- 09