Garcia v. Alk
| Decision Date | 30 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | 09-CV-2045 (DLI)(LB) |
| Parties | ROBERT E. GARCIA, pro se, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL F ALK, Area Supervisor, Queens Parole III; PAROLE OFFICER MRS. AMES; PAROLE OFFICER MR. V. SUERO; SR. PAROLE OFFICER MR. R. CHONG; and SR. PAROLE OFFICER C. BENJAMIN, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Pro se1 plaintiff Robert Garcia ("Plaintiff") brings this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Parole Supervisor Michael Falk, and Parole Officers Ames, Suero, Chong, and Benjamin (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his constitutional rights by administratively imposing and enforcing a term of post-release supervision ("PRS"). Defendants assert qualified immunity and move to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claim fails as a matter of law because: (1) it is barred by the statute of limitations; (2) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity; and (3) Defendants were not personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation. (See Defendants' Mem. of Law in Supp. of Motion to Dismiss ("Defs. Mot. to Dismiss"), Docket Entry No. 13-2, at 5-21.) Plaintiff also moves to amend his pleading. The Court referredDefendants' motion to dismiss to the Honorable Lois Bloom, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation ("R & R").
On March 11, 2011, the magistrate judge issued an R & R recommending that the Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss in part and deny it in part. Plaintiff and Defendants submitted timely objections to the R & R. (See Plaintiff's Objections to R&R ("Pl. Obj."), Docket Entry No. 35; Government's Objections to R&R ("Gov't Obj."), Docket Entry No. 34.) Having reviewed the R & R and the parties' timely objections thereto, the Court adopts in part and modifies in part the recommendations contained in the R & R, for the reasons set forth below. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is denied without prejudice.
In 1998, the New York legislature enacted "Jenna's Law," which requires the imposition of PRS "as a mandatory follow-up period to a determinate sentence for violent felony offenders." State v. Myers, 22 Misc. 3d 809, 812-13(Sup. Ct. Albany Co. 2008); see also N.Y. Penal Law § 70.45 (1999) (). For several years after the enactment, if the sentencing court did not impose a period of PRS at the time it imposed a determinate sentence, the Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS") imposed post-release supervision administratively and New York appellate courts consistently upheld that administrative imposition of PRS. See, e.g., Collins v. State, 69 A.D.3d 46, 50 (4th Dep't 2009) (citations omitted); Myers, 22 Misc. 3d at 811, 812-13.
On June 9, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit applied the seventy-year-old United States Supreme Court decision in Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler and held that DOCS's imposition of extra-judicial sentences of PRS violated federal law. Earley v. Murray, 451 F.3d 71, 76 (2d Cir. 2006). Nevertheless, following the Second Circuit's decision in Earley, three of the four appellate departments in New York continued to uphold the administrative imposition of PRS. Myers, 22 Misc. 3d at 813 n.9 ().
In April 2008, approximately two years after Earley, the New York Court of Appeals held in Garner v. N.Y. State Dep't Corr. Servs., 10 N.Y.3d 358 (2008) and People v. Sparber, 10 N.Y.3d 457 (2008), that PRS imposed by anyone other than a judge violates New York State law. See Garner, 10 N.Y.3d at 362. After these Court of Appeals decisions, there was significant confusion in the lower New York State courts "about what to do if the prisoner was already released on PRS" because "Garner and Sparber did not provide much guidance." Mickens v. State, 25 Misc. 3d 191, 196-97 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 2009). However, in June 2008, the New York State legislature enacted section 601-d of the Correction Law, which "provide[s] a mechanism for courts to consider resentencing defendants serving determinate sentences without court-ordered post-release supervision terms." People v. Williams, 14 N.Y.3d 198, 206 (2010); see also Mickens, 25 Misc. 3d at 198.
On March 14, 2000, Plaintiff was convicted of attempted robbery in the second degree and sentenced to three and a half years' imprisonment. (Complaint, Docket Entry No. 4-3, at 3; Declaration of Michael Arcati ("Defs. Decl."), Docket Entry 13-2, Ex. C ("Certificate of Release").) On November 27, 2001, Plaintiff was released to parole. (Certificate of Release at1.) Despite the sentencing court's silence as to the imposition of PRS, DOCS administratively imposed a period of five years of PRS pursuant to Section 70.45 of the New York Penal Law. (Id.; Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff states that he "was given illegal 5 years post release supervision from a 2000 conviction which caused a heavy burden on [his] life." (Compl. at 3.) It appears that Plaintiff was incarcerated at Rikers Island from at least November 2004 to September 2005 for violating PRS. (Id. at p.5.) Plaintiff was resentenced on January 20, 2009 pursuant to Section 601-d and the sentencing judge did not impose a term of PRS.
When a party objects to a report and recommendation, a district judge must make a de novo determination with respect to those portions of the report and recommendation to which the party objects. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F. 3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). If, however, a party makes conclusory or general objections, or attempts to relitigate the party's original arguments, the court will review the report and recommendation for clear error. See Robinson v. Superintendent, Green Haven Corr. Facility, 2012 WL 123263, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2012) (quoting Walker v. Vaughan, 216 F. Supp. 2d 290, 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)). The district court may then "accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The magistrate judge recommends that the Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds as to Plaintiff's pre-Earley claims. (R & R at 6-7.) Though Plaintiffalleges that Defendants violated his rights in 2001 when DOCS administratively imposed PRS, and again between November 2004 and September 2005 when he was incarcerated at Rikers Island for violating PRS, the magistrate judge reasoned that because this conduct all occurred before Earley, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for these claims because the right at issue was not yet clearly established. The Court agrees and the R & R is adopted on this ground.
With regard to Plaintiff's post-Earley claims, the magistrate judge recommends that the Court find that, "[t]o the extent plaintiff claims that defendants violated his constitutional rights by holding him in custody for the 204 days that elapsed between the passage of Section 601-d and his resentencing, the instant record does not establish a basis for qualified immunity." (R &R at 7.) Defendants object to this conclusion, arguing that the magistrate judge erred by: (1) assuming facts not alleged in the complaint related to Plaintiff's period of incarceration; (2) concluding that any defects in the complaint regarding Defendants' personal involvement were insufficient for dismissal; and (3) finding that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the period after the enactment of 601-d. (Defs. Mot. to Dismiss at 11-17.) Upon a de novo review, the Court adopts the recommendation of the magistrate judge that Defendants have not met their burden of proof on the affirmative defense of qualified immunity after the post 601-d period, but modifies the R & R to deny qualified immunity for Defendants' conduct post-Early but pre-Sparber and Garner.
Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that the events giving rise to his claim occurred "[f]rom 2001 to 2004, 2005 up to Jan 19 2009." (Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff also alleges that he was "being unlawfully imprisoned and illegally detained on a post release supervision violation." (Id. at 5.) He notes, "This violation occurred from November 2004 to September 2005 on Rikers IslandA.M.K.C. correctional facility . . . and I just finished getting the illegal post release lifted on Jan. 19th 2009." (Id.) In his opposition brief, Plaintiff also claims that "he was illegally detained because of [an] illegally imposed PRS violation from November 2004 to September 2005 . . . [and] further held on PRS until 2009 before it was decided that the PRS was null and void." (Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Mot. to Dismiss, Docket Entry No. 25, at 2.)2 The Uniform Sentence and Commitment report attached to Defendants' motion to dismiss is ambiguous regarding whether Plaintiff was in custody at the time of resentencing in January 2009. (Defs. Decl., Ex. B.) Based on these alleged facts and a liberal construction of Plaintiff's papers, the magistrate judge assumed that "[P]laintiff was held in custody on a PRS violation until he was resentenced on January 20, 2009." (R & R at 7.)
Defendants now take issue with whether the abovementioned facts support the magistrate judge's conclusion that Plaintiff was in custody on a PRS violation for the 204 days between the passage of Section 601-d on June 30, 2008 and his resentencing....
To continue reading
Request your trial