Zielinski v. United States
1:12-cv-01160
S.D.N.Y.Sep 10, 2013Background
- Zielinski, on supervised release after a 2006 DNJ conspiracy to commit access device fraud, was transferred to the Northern District of New York for supervision.
- The DNJ imposed four standard supervised-release conditions; in Oct 2011 a Halloween Directive added broad restrictions on Zielinski’s home and interactions with minors, purportedly applicable to all similar supervisees.
- Zielinski objected, arguing the Directive exceeded court-imposed conditions and violated due process and his rights; USPO Connolly later admitted improper authority to alter conditions without a hearing and modified the Directive.
- A modification hearing was held Feb 2, 2012 before Judge McAvoy, resulting in sex-offender-specific conditions more narrowly tailored to Zielinski’s crimes; the Second Circuit later affirmed these conditions.
- Zielinski filed this Bivens action and §1985 claim alleging Fifth and Fourth Amendment violations, and sought injunctive and declaratory relief; the court granted in part and denied in part, dismissing First and Sixth Amendment claims and all equitable-relief claims, while preserving Fifth and Fourth Amendment Bivens claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on qualified-immunity grounds; the court addresses liability, reasonableness of officers’ conduct, and standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Halloween Directive violate Rule 32.1 modification requirements? | Zielinski alleges the USPO impermissibly imposed new conditions without a modification hearing. | USPO could issue directives following general instructions to supervisees and rely on broader authority. | Yes; the Halloween Directive violated the court’s modification procedures and due process, defeating qualified immunity on this issue. |
| Are Zielinski’s Fifth and Fourth Amendment claims viable under Bivens in this context? | Bivens provides a damages remedy for federal constitutional violations, including procedural due process and, potentially, Fourth Amendment harms. | Extending Bivens to this First/Procedural context is inappropriate; the statutory scheme governs supervised release and should not be supplemented. | Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim (and thus Bivens) may proceed; Fourth Amendment seizure claim also viable against the officers. |
| Are the First or Sixth Amendment Bivens claims viable or should they be dismissed? | Bivens should extend to protect expressive/associational rights in the Halloween context. | Courts have not recognized a Bivens remedy for First Amendment claims in this context; restricts extension. | First and Sixth Amendment Bivens claims are dismissed. |
| Do the officers have qualified immunity for the Halloween Directive? | Officers violated clearly established law by imposing conditions without court modification. | Reasonableness of actions could be debated given Zielinski’s status and risk. | No qualified immunity; officers could not reasonably impose a condition entirely without court authorization. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tellier v. Fields, 280 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2000) (procedural due process and liberty interests in supervised-release context)
- Lifshitz v. United States, 369 F.3d 173 (2d Cir.) (special needs in probation context; monitoring duties under probation)
- Peterson v. United States, 248 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2001) (impermissible delegation of authority to probation officer; court must set conditions)
- Anderson v. Recore, 317 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2003) (clearly established standard for qualified immunity)