609 F. App'x 680
2d Cir.2015Background
- Albert Lopez Victory, a long-term New York inmate convicted of felony murder, was granted parole by a two-member panel on January 11, 1999, with an open release date of March 11, 1999; notification was delayed and a Notice of Temporary Suspension issued on January 19, 1999.
- Governor Pataki’s office (via Director Katherine Lapp) received news of the grant and solicited the parole file and adverse letters emphasizing Victory’s 1978 escape; letters from prosecutors and a judge followed criticizing release.
- A three-member rescission panel including Commissioner Kenneth Graber convened March 9, 1999, and rescinded the grant based on “new materials” about the escape; Graber testified (unsworn) that he had not known about the escape at the January hearing.
- The Parole Appeals Unit later found Graber’s conduct at the rescission hearing tainted due to his dual role as unsworn witness and decisionmaker and ordered a new hearing; state-court habeas proceedings briefly resulted in release and later reinstatement; Victory was re-released in 2005 after later reincarceration and revocation matters.
- Victory sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging due process violations (fabrication of a false basis for rescission and lack of an impartial tribunal), conspiracy, equal protection, and Fourth Amendment claims; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants; on appeal the Second Circuit reversed in part and remanded for trial on certain due process claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were Victory's due process rights violated by rescission based on fabricated or non-new evidence and an impartial tribunal? | Victory: State actors conspired to manufacture a false pretext (escape) and orchestrated a rescission hearing knowing Graber would act as unsworn witness and judge. | Defendants: Rescission based on legitimately discovered "new" information; Graber entitled to absolute/quasi-judicial immunity; no evidence of conspiracy or personal involvement by other officials. | Reversed as to several parole officials; factual disputes (phone records, timing, conduct) preclude summary judgment — trial required on due process claims against Tracy, Grant, Travis, Hayden, White; Graber has absolute immunity for judicial acts. |
| Does absolute immunity bar claims against Commissioner Graber for rescission hearing conduct? | Victory: Graber participated improperly and lied about prior knowledge, so immunity may not apply to all acts. | Graber: acted in quasi-judicial capacity when deciding to rescind parole and is absolutely immune. | Affirmed for Graber: absolute immunity applies to his quasi-judicial acts. |
| Were high-level officials (e.g., Governor Pataki) personally liable or liable under a policy/custom theory? | Victory: Pataki fostered a policy opposing parole for violent offenders and his staff acted at his direction. | Defendants: No evidence Pataki personally directed or was aware of the specific actions; vicarious liability inapplicable. | Affirmed for Pataki: insufficient evidence of personal involvement or a policy/custom causing the due process violation. |
| Do Victory's supervision/revocation, equal protection, and Fourth Amendment claims survive summary judgment? | Victory: selective enforcement, excessive supervision/revocation, illegal GPS placement, conspiracies with Syracuse police. | Defendants: No evidence of impermissible motive or similarly situated comparators; Heck bar applies to revocation challenge; no proof GPS was placed; qualified immunity applies. | Affirmed dismissal of these claims: no evidence supporting equal protection or class-of-one claims; GPS claim fails and, even if raised, defendants qualifiedly immune; revocation claims barred by Heck. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2000) (fabrication of false evidence by government officer violates due process)
- Montero v. Travis, 171 F.3d 757 (2d Cir. 1999) (absolute immunity for parole commissioners acting in quasi-judicial capacity)
- Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997) (no absolute immunity for officials who fabricate and forward known false information)
- Scotto v. Almenas, 143 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 1998) (no absolute immunity for parole officers who fabricated parole violations)
- Friedl v. City of New York, 210 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2000) (due process requires neutral and detached hearing body and some evidence)
- Barna v. Travis, 239 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2001) (no liberty interest in mere possibility of release; but parole grantees have protectable liberty interest once release is granted)
- Green v. McCall, 822 F.2d 284 (2d Cir. 1987) (parole grantees entitled to due process in rescission proceedings)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (supervisory liability requires more than respondeat superior)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (civil challenges that imply invalidity of conviction or sentence are barred until favorable termination)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (qualified immunity standard; clearly established law requirement)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (permitting certain warrantless electronic tracking under Fourth Amendment)