Victory v. Pataki
814 F.3d 47
2d Cir.2016Background
- Albert Lopez Victory, convicted of felony murder, was granted an "open" parole release date on January 11, 1999 by a two-member Parole Board panel; the file contained multiple references to his 1978 escape.
- The day after the grant, media inquiries led Special Assistant Thomas Grant to notify Parole Board officials and Katherine Lapp (Governor Pataki’s Director of Criminal Justice); Lapp then solicited prosecutor input opposing release.
- Within days, Parole Division officials suspended Victory’s release and convened a three-member rescission panel; Commissioner Graber (who sat on the original panel) testified—unsworn—that the January panel had not known about the 1978 escape. The panel rescinded release.
- Administrative review and state courts found the rescission hearing procedurally defective (Graber acted as unsworn witness/prosecutor/judge); the Appeals Unit remanded for a new hearing, and a state court briefly ordered release; Victory was ultimately released later in 1999 and reincarcerated during parole.
- Victory sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging due process violations and conspiracy to deprive him of a neutral decisionmaker and that defendants fabricated a false basis for rescission. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants; the Second Circuit vacated and remanded in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a New York parole grantee has a protected liberty interest in an open release date | Victory: an open release date creates a legitimate, protectable expectancy of release entitled to due process | Defendants: NY regulations give the Board broad discretion to rescind, so no protectable interest | Court: Parole grantee has a protectable liberty interest under Green; NY rules limit rescission and afford due process protections |
| Whether Victory was denied due process via lack of an impartial decisionmaker and/or reliance on fabricated evidence | Victory: rescission rested on Graber’s unsworn claim that prior panel didn’t know of the escape; panel was biased and evidence may have been fabricated | Defendants: procedures were followed; any errors were mistakes; Graber entitled to immunity for adjudicative acts | Court: Rescission hearing was procedurally tainted; material factual disputes (e.g., whether Graber knew of the escape or lied) preclude summary judgment |
| Whether Commissioner Graber’s absolute immunity bars all § 1983 claims | Victory: absolute immunity for adjudication should not shield pre-hearing fabrication or conspirators | Defendants: Graber’s absolute immunity for quasi-judicial acts bars claims arising from the rescission decision | Court: Graber has absolute immunity for adjudicative acts, but absolute immunity does not automatically shield others or pre-hearing fabrication; immunity does not "relate back" to earlier non-adjudicative misconduct |
| Whether other named defendants were personally involved or conspired to violate due process | Victory: Lapp, Grant, Tracy (and others) conspired to produce a false basis for rescission and deprived him of a neutral tribunal | Defendants: at most they reviewed the file; no direct evidence of agreement to fabricate; insufficient personal involvement; Pataki/Travis lacked personal involvement | Court: Insufficient direct-evidence of knowing, direct participation by most defendants, but reasonable jury could infer a conspiracy involving Grant and Tracy (and Lapp) based on timing, phone records, and inconsistent testimony; Pataki and Travis lacked sufficient evidence of personal involvement |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. McCall, 822 F.2d 284 (2d Cir. 1987) (parole grantee may possess protectable liberty interest)
- Graziano v. Pataki, 689 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2012) (due process framework for liberty interests)
- Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (U.S. 2011) (two-step procedural due process inquiry)
- Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2000) (constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty on basis of fabricated evidence)
- Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997) (liability for knowingly falsifying evidence)
- Montero v. Travis, 171 F.3d 757 (2d Cir. 1999) (absolute immunity for parole board members performing quasi-adjudicative functions)