Sudler v. City of New York
689 F.3d 159
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Sudler and Batthany, state and city prisoners, allege due process violations from DOCS/DOP/NYCDOC failure to credit time served at Rikers with parole violations (PJT) when local sentences were concurrent with parole revocations.
- Sudler’s release date was calculated to July 10, 2006, without PJT credits; he served longer than the concurrent local sentences.
- Batthany’s release date was calculated as August 23, 2008; after discovering documents showing concurrent intent, he was released about six weeks later.
- State Defendants allegedly followed a policy of denying PJT credits unless explicit concurrent intent was shown by a judge through a Sentence and Commitment form or Certificate of Disposition.
- District court dismissed the City Defendants and granted summary judgment to the State Defendants, holding a due process violation occurred but qualified immunity shielded liability.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding Defendants entitled to qualified immunity without deciding whether due process rights were violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State Defendants violated due process by denying PJT credits | Sudler and Batthany argue failure to credit violated due process | State Defendants contend policy and law did not establish a clearly established right, or they acted reasonably | Qualified immunity applies; due process not resolved |
| Whether City Defendants are liable given the state defendants' immunity | Batthany contends City inaction contributed to harm | City Defendants rely on lack of direct involvement and immunity | Qualified immunity extends to City Defendants; no liability |
| Whether declaratory relief is moot | Plaintiffs seek declarations about PJT credits for future enforcement | Relief would not affect current release dates and lacks ongoing stake | Moot; declaratory relief denied |
| Whether class certification and leave to amend were properly denied | Plaintiffs seek class certification and opportunity to amend based on discovery | No clearly established right and amendment would be futile | Class certification moot; leave to amend denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Earley v. Murray, 451 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006) (clearly established right to not have custodial sentence unlawfully extended; discusses Earley and PRS)
- Scott v. Fischer, 616 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2010) (qualified immunity not automatically tied to clearly established federal law for non-lawyers)
- Wampler (Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler), 298 U.S. 460 (Supreme Court 1936) (judgment controls; administrative amendments cannot alter sentence without proper procedure)
- Tippitt v. Wood, 140 F.2d 689 (D.C. Cir. 1944) (parole consequences and time served; concurrent/consecutive distinctions)
- Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463 (U.S. 2012) (questions about concurrent vs. consecutive sentences in different contexts)
- Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (U.S. 1984) (government official liability and procedural due process)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (Mathews test for balancing procedural due process interests)
- Young v. County of Fulton, 160 F.3d 899 (2d Cir. 1998) (qualified immunity and due process)