New York: Class Action Filed against Prison Officials for Applying Illegal Sentences
New York: Class Action Filed against Prison Officials for Applying Illegal Sentences
Two men have filed a class action complaint in federal court against current and former New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) employees for administratively imposing post-release supervision (PRS) in violation of federal law.
Wesley Gabriel and Shawn Smith filed their complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 11, 2008. The complaint – representing Gabriel, Smith and all others that have been or will be affected by PRS – alleged that DOCS Commissioner Brian Fischer, former DOCS Commissioner Glenn Goord, and other present and post officials had knowingly imposed and enforced its PRS policy in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. Injunctive relief and damages were sought.
Gabriel and Smith, in separate unrelated cases, were sentenced to at least one determinate sentence of seven years each. After serving approximately 85 percent of their sentences, the DOCS imposed a 5 year term of PRS each of the men, Gabriel on November 24, 2006 and Smith on October 26, 2005. Gabriel was violated under the terms of his PRS and re-imprisoned on November 28, 2007, due to an arrest on false charges. He was released on February 5, 2008, after the charges were dropped, but was still subject to PRS. In contrast, Smith, after being re-imprisoned under PRS on January 16, 2007, filed a petition in state court challenging his incarceration. The court held his PRS to be illegally applied and ordered his release on December 21, 2007.
In 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declared that the DOCS’ imposition of PRS violated clearly established federal law; that “… the imposition of a sentence is a judicial act…[PRS] administratively added by the [DOCS] was… never part of the sentence.” See: Earley v. Murray, 451 F.3d 71, 76 (2nd Cir. 2006). Despite this precedent, the DOCS continued to impose and enforce terms of PRS on a number of individuals.
The plaintiffs specifically sought: (1) a judgment declaring that the defendants violated the law; (2) a permanent order for the defendants to cease imposing PRS and to lift the terms of PRS from all of those affected; (3) the immediate release of those imprisoned under administratively added PRS; (4) compensatory and punitive damages to be determined at trial; and (5) disbursements, costs and attorneys’ fees. See: Smith v. Fisher, U.S.D.C. (S.D. N.Y.) Case no. 1:08-cv-02460-SHS.
Related legal cases
Smith v. Fisher
| Year | 2008 |
|---|---|
| Cite | U.S.D.C. (S.D. N.Y.) Case no. 1:08-cv-02460-SHS |
| Level | District Court |
Earley v. Murray
| Year | 2006 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 451 F.3d 71 (2nd Cir. 2006) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |