Bailey v. Pataki
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3200
2d Cir.2013Background
- SVP Initiative directed by Gov. Pataki to involuntarily civilly commit certain SVPs after their release dates
- Initiative used Mental Hygiene Law § 9.27 rather than Correction Law § 402 to bypass standard inmate commitment procedures
- OMH and DOCS collected inmate histories and employed two-physician certification followed by psychiatric evaluation
- Inmates identified for commitment received no advance notice or predeprivation hearing
- Bailey and others were committed pursuant to the Initiative; Bailey did not seek a hearing and believed his stay would be brief
- State habeas corpus challenges in Harkavy v. Consilvio recognized due process concerns and informed further proceedings
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs’ procedural due process claims survive as to precommitment notice and hearing | Bailey asserts SVP process violated due process | Defendants contend procedures complied with due process or postdeprivation remedies suffice | Not entitled to qualified immunity; predeprivation process required |
| Whether the right to predeprivation notice/hearing was clearly established at the time | Bailey argues clearly established right to predeprivation process | Defendants argue rights not clearly established across circuits | Right clearly established; predeprivation hearing required absent exigent circumstances |
| Whether postdeprivation remedies could validate precommitment deprivations | Postdeprivation habeas relief could cure due process gaps | Postdeprivation remedy sufficiency argued for avoidance of predeprivation hearing | Postdeprivation remedy not constitutionally sufficient where predeprivation process feasible |
| Whether the district court properly denied qualified immunity given the record | Rights were clearly established; defendants knew or should have known | Disputes on defendant involvement; immunity favored if right not clearly established | Qualified immunity not available; right clearly established in context |
| Whether other non-procedural claims were properly addressed | Other federal/state claims intertwined with immunity analysis | Court should dismiss ancillary claims if immunity applies | Court declined to rule on ancillary claims; not tied to immunity outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Vitek v. Jones, 445 F.3d 480 (U.S. (1980)) (predeprivation protections for prison transfers to mental hospitals; safeguards required)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (U.S. (1990)) (postdeprivation hearings may suffice only in limited circumstances; predeprivation preferred where feasible)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. (1976)) (three-factor test for what process is due in a given case)
- Project Release v. Prevost, 722 F.2d 960 (2d Cir. (1983)) (facial validity of Article 9; as-applied challenges allowed)
- Rodriguez v. City of New York, 72 F.3d 1051 (2d Cir. (1995)) (due process safeguards when emergency commitments and risk of error)