22-b-2 Review of Discretionary Administrative Decision-"arbitrary and Capricious" Standard (mandamus to Review)

• Library: A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual (2020 Edition)

22-B-2. Review of Discretionary Administrative Decision-"Arbitrary and Capricious" Standard (Mandamus to Review)

A second type of action under Article 78 is a claim that asks the court to review a discretionary administrative decision or action (as opposed to the failure of an official to do something required by law, explained above in Part B(1)). If you want the court to review a discretionary administrative action or decision, you will have to claim it was against the law because the action or decision was made without a sound reason. The law calls such decisions and actions "arbitrary and capricious."³² An arbitrary and capricious decision or action is one taken "without sound basis in reason and . . . without regard to the facts."³³

The arbitrary and capricious standard can be used to challenge decisions made by agency officials. It can be used, for example, to challenge a disciplinary decision that was made without following the procedures required by law.³⁴ If an agency harmed you by violating its own legally required procedures (the law or their own regulations) in making an administrative decision, you can argue that such an action is arbitrary and capricious.³⁵

Keep in mind that generally courts believe that administrative officials are in the best position to make decisions regarding prisoners. Thus, it is very difficult to prove that an agency or official acted arbitrarily or capriciously in making a decision that is left up to its, or his or her, judgment. The court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the official,³⁶ unless you can show that the decision was so unreasonable as to require that it be overturned.

Examples of decisions that could be challenged as arbitrary under this type of Article 78 proceeding would include most day-to-day prison decisions, such as decisions regarding furlough and temporary release,³⁷ appearances at disciplinary proceedings,³⁸ access to evidence,³⁹ visitation rights, mail access, and transfers. But note that the opportunity to review transfers in particular is very limited because New York law gives the Commissioner of Corrections "almost unbridled authority to transfer inmates from one facility to another."⁴⁰ "Unbridled authority" means having complete power to take an action without interference by others- for instance the courts. Challenges to transfers, however, have been upheld where:

(1) a prisoner's request for an appropriate transfer for medical reasons is unreasonably denied;⁴¹

(2) a prisoner requires rehabilitative treatment that has been completely withheld;⁴² and

(3) a member of an inmate grievance committee, who represents other prisoners and abides by the rules of the institution, is transferred without a hearing or compelling emergency.⁴³

Challenges based on a claim...