Locantore v. Hunt
775 F. Supp. 2d 680
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Plaintiff pled guilty to rape on February 23, 1999 and was sentenced to five years of incarceration.
- Plaintiff contends no period of supervised release was contemplated or entered in the sentence, and no advisement was given to him.
- Upon completing incarceration in October 2003, Plaintiff was held under a five-year post-release supervision (PRS) imposed administratively by DOC officials.
- Plaintiff was reincarcerated in November 2003 for violating PRS conditions, and in March 2008 a habeas petition granted his release from incarceration.
- In February 2009, Plaintiff was resentenced to the original determinate five-year sentence that had expired in 2003.
- Plaintiff filed a federal complaint in June 2009, asserting multiple §1983, §1985, §1986, state constitutional, and negligence claims; several claims were dismissed, and the remaining state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1983 claims are time-barred | Locantore argues accrual occurred at habeas relief in March 2008. | Defendants contend accrual earlier and that Earley precludes timely claims. | Claims timely; accrual tied to invalidation of sentence per Heck/Earley framework. |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity | Earley-era unlawfulness of administrative PRS; post-Earley conduct actionable. | Pre-Earley conduct was discretionary and protected by qualified immunity; post-Earley there was no clearly established duty to act. | Qualified immunity shields pre-Earley conduct; no post-Earley actionable conduct established; all federal claims dismissed. |
| Whether failure-to-act theories support §1983 liability | DOC/Parole officials had an affirmative duty to correct illegal sentences after Earley. | No legal duty to act before habeas relief; no authority to unilaterally correct sentences. | No actionable failure-to-act claims; no duty shown; claims dismissed. |
| Whether state-law claims remain after federal claims dismissal | State constitutional and negligence claims should proceed alongside federal claims. | Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissal of all federal claims. | State-law claims dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Earley v. Murray, 451 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006) (administrative PRS violation of due process; clearly established for habeas context)
- Garner v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 10 N.Y.3d 358 (N.Y. 2008) (NY practice of administratively imposing PRS violates due process when not imposed by sentencing judge)
- People v. Sparber, 10 N.Y.3d 457 (N.Y. 2008) (administrative PRS violation of due process; guidance on remedial actions)
- Scott v. Fischer, 616 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2010) (clarifies qualified immunity scope and pre-Earley conduct protections)
- Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2009) ( accrual and limitations for §1983 claims in NY context)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (claims accrual tied to injury and legal doctrine for §1983 actions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading; not a mere possibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility and recalls of factual allegations required for §1983)