Betances v. Fischer
837 F.3d 162
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- New York Penal Law § 70.45 required judges to impose post-release supervision (PRS) with determinate sentences for violent felons, but many judges failed to pronounce PRS; DOCS then administratively added PRS to inmate records and DOP enforced it.
- In Earley v. Murray, 451 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006) (Earley I), the Second Circuit held DOCS may not administratively add PRS where the sentencing judge did not pronounce it; the court ordered excision of such PRS where appropriate.
- After Earley I, DOCS and DOP officials (Annucci, Fischer, Tracy) understood the decision but affirmatively declined to change practices; they continued to add and enforce PRS.
- State appellate decisions were inconsistent until the New York Court of Appeals (People v. Sparber; Garner) ruled judges must orally pronounce PRS (Apr. 29, 2008); only then did DOCS/DOP undertake broad remedial steps (file review, resentencing initiative, declaratory action).
- Plaintiffs (offenders subjected to administratively imposed PRS after Earley I) sued for damages; district court granted plaintiffs summary judgment denying qualified immunity; defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for continuing to add/enforce administratively imposed PRS after Earley I | Defendants knowingly violated clearly established constitutional rights and failed to make objectively reasonable efforts to stop; no immunity | They acted reasonably given state-law ambiguity, practical burdens of resentencing, and lack of cooperation from courts/DA offices | Denied immunity; officials not entitled to qualified immunity for unreasonable delay in compliance |
| When defendants reasonably knew their conduct violated federal law | Earley I (and denial of rehearing) clearly established the rule; defendants became aware between June 2006 and Jan 2007 (court adopts dates favorable to defendants) | Defendants argue uncertainty until state courts decided or until later dates | Court treated earlier awareness as established (Annucci by June 20, 2006; others by end of 2006/Jan 2007) and permits district court to refine dates on remand |
| Whether defendants’ post-Earley efforts were objectively reasonable | Plaintiffs: long delay (14–19 months) before meaningful remediation was unreasonable; limited measures earlier were inadequate | Defendants: only required to prepare for individual resentencings; resentencing logistically difficult; resistance from judges/DAs justified delay | Actions only in 2008 were reasonable but unreasonably delayed; defendants’ earlier inaction was not objectively reasonable |
| District court’s order deeming appeal frivolous to retain jurisdiction and try damages | Plaintiffs sought to have appeal deemed frivolous so district court could proceed to damages trial | Defendants argued district court erred in deeming appeal frivolous | Issue rendered moot by stay of proceedings; appellate court says moot and declines to decide |
Key Cases Cited
- Earley v. Murray, 451 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006) (DOCS may not administratively add PRS when sentencing judge did not impose it)
- Vincent v. Yelich, 718 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 2013) (Earley I clearly established DOCS’s obligation to attempt to cease unlawful administrative and custodial enforcement of PRS)
- People v. Sparber, 10 N.Y.3d 457 (N.Y. 2008) (Court of Appeals: judge must orally pronounce PRS for it to be part of the sentence)
- Garner v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 10 N.Y.3d 358 (N.Y. 2008) (same holding on necessity of oral pronouncement of PRS)
- Scott v. Fischer, 616 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing implementation inconsistencies among Appellate Departments after Earley I)