Francis v. Fiacco
942 F.3d 126
2d Cir.2019Background:
- In Sept. 2006 a New York state court sentenced Byran Francis to 1.5–3 years and directed the state term to run concurrently with a “federal sentence scheduled to be imposed soon.”
- In Nov. 2006 a federal court sentenced Francis to 120 months; the federal court did not order concurrency, so under federal practice the BOP did not credit state time toward the federal term.
- New York law (Penal Law §70.30(2‑a)) bars a state court from ordering concurrency with a sentence that has not yet been imposed; DOCCS concluded it could not implement the state court’s forward‑looking concurrency directive, lodged a consecutive detainer, and took custody after Francis completed his federal term.
- Francis served roughly four months in DOCCS custody before the state court resentenced him nunc pro tunc so the state term ran concurrently, after which DOCCS recalculated and released him.
- Francis sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging due process and Eighth Amendment violations; the district court denied qualified immunity and found constitutional violations. The Second Circuit held that DOCCS’s failure to give prompt notice violated due process but nevertheless granted the defendants qualified immunity and reversed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOCCS’s implementation of sentence without notifying sentencing court/attorneys violated procedural due process | Francis: detention beyond intended sentence deprived him of liberty without adequate process; DOCCS should have notified court and counsel promptly | DOCCS: followed (reasonable) reading of NY law; notification to prisoner and his contacting the court sufficed | Court: Mathews balancing requires DOCCS to promptly notify sentencing court and counsel (and explain basis) before implementing a divergent sentence; failure violated Due Process (but see qualified immunity result) |
| Whether extended detention (≈4 months) violated Eighth Amendment | Francis: extra incarceration was objectively serious and showed deliberate indifference | DOCCS: acted on reasonable legal interpretation; not deliberately indifferent | Court: did not decide merits; found no clearly established Eighth Amendment rule to overcome qualified immunity |
| Whether prior precedent clearly established the right (qualified immunity) | Francis: Wampler and Earley clearly established that officials cannot detain beyond the judge’s sentence and must notify court/counsel | DOCCS: Wampler/Earley don’t speak clearly to inter‑jurisdictional/concurrency disputes; Sudler and other law left room for reasonable, mistaken judgment | Court: Mathews‑based due process rule existed but was not "clearly established" in the particularized sense; defendants entitled to qualified immunity |
| Proper remedy / relief | Francis: damages for constitutional violations and injunctive relief | DOCCS: entitled to immunity; no damages | Court: ordered summary judgment for defendants on qualified immunity grounds; constitutional holding limited and prospective guidance on required notice procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (establishes three‑factor balancing test for what process is due)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard for discretionary officials)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (court discretion to decide qualified immunity prongs in either order)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (prior mandatory two‑step qualified immunity framework discussed)
- Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (counsel on when to decide constitutional questions despite immunity)
- Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler, 298 U.S. 460 (sentence must be expressed in the court's judgment; administrators cannot add penalties)
- Earley v. Murray, 451 F.3d 71 (judgment of the court fixes sentence; administrators may not increase it)
- Sudler v. City of New York, 689 F.3d 159 (qualified immunity where relation between multiple sentences imposed by different jurisdictions created ambiguity)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (clearly established law must be particularized)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (reasonableness/clarity standard for qualified immunity)