09 -4 53 2- cv

Ri ver s v. Fi sc her UNITED STA TES COURT OF AP PEALS FO R T HESE COND CI RC UI T
SUMMARY ORD ER

RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HA VE P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F E CT
. C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED B Y T H IS C O U R T ’S L O C A L R U L E 3 2 .1 .1 A N D F E D E R A L R U L E O F A P P E L L A T E P R O C E D U R E 3 2 .1
. W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A DO CUM ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR A N E L E CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N O TA TI O N “ SUM M A R Y O R D ER ” )
. A PAR TY CI TI N G A SUM M A R Y O R D ER M U ST S ER V E A CO PY O F IT O N A N Y P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . At a stated Term of

the United Stat es Court of Appeals for the Second Cir cuit, held a t the Daniel Patri ck Moynihan United St ates Courthouse , 500 Pearl Stre et, in the City of New York, on the 13 day of August, two thousand and ten.

th
Present: ROSEMAR Y S. POOL ER, ROBERT D. SACK , RE ENA R

AG GI , Ci rcu it Jud ge s.

_____________________________________________________ DERRICK

RIVERS,
Pl aintif f- Ap pe llant,

-v- (09-4532-cv)
BRIAN FISCH ER, individually and as Commissionerof the New York State Department of Correctiona l Services , RICHARD H. HARD ING, individuall y and as acti ng Superintendentof the Mohawk Correct ional Facil ity, GEORGE E. A LEXAND ER, individual and as Chairman of the New York State Divisi on of Parole and JOHN DOE 1-10,
De fe nd ants- Ap pe lle es.
Appearing for Appellant : Michael Coli han, Law Off ice of Michael Colihan, Brooklyn, NY. Appearing for Appellees : Cecilia C. Chang, Assist ant Solici tor General , for Andrew Cuom o, Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, NY. Appeal from the United States Distr ict Court for the Southern Distr ict of New York (B att s, J. ).A new m echanism was needed because, in many cases, the one-year st atute of 1 limitations for motions to corr ect/amend a sentence ha d expired. Se eN. Y. Crim . P roc . L aw § 440.40.
2 ON CONSIDERA TION WHEREOF, IT IS HERE BY ORDERED, ADJU DGED, AND DE CREED that th e ju dg m ent of sai d D istric t C ourt b e an d it he reb y is AFFIRMED

. Plaintiff-AppellantDerrick River s appeals a Sept ember 28, 2009 decision and orderof the United Stat es Distri ct Court for the Southe rn Distri ct of New York (Batts, J.) granting de fen dant s- ap pe ll ee s’ mot io n t o d is mis s R iv er s’ s s ui t o n qua li fi edimmun ity g ro un ds . We assume the parties’ fam iliar ity with the underlying facts , procedural history, and s pecificati on of issues for revi ew. A g ov ernm ent of

fi cia l is entit led

to q ua lif ied imm un ityfo r hi s ac tio ns un les s h is c on du ct vio lat es a cle arl y e sta

bli sh ed co ns tit uti on al o r st atutor

y ri ght of wh ich a re aso na

ble pe rso n w ou ld have known. Pearson v. Callahan , 1 29 S. Ct . 8 08 , 8 15 (20 09 ). T he Se co nd Ci rcu it h as h eld

that a ri ght is “cl early e sta

bli sh ed ” f or q ua lif ied imm un itypurpo ses if

“(1 ) th e law i s d ef

ine d w ith reasonable clarity, (2) the Supre me C ourt or the Second Circuit ha s recognize d the right , and (3) ‘a r eas on ab le d ef

en dant w ou ld h av e und ers too d f rom the ex ist inglawthat hi s co nd uc t w as un law fu l.’ ” An de rso n v . R eco re , 317 F.3d 194, 197 (2d Cir. 2003) (quot ing Young v. County of Fulton , 160 F.3d 889, 903 (2d Cir. 1998)).
After the Second Circui t’s deci sion in Earley v. Murray , 4 51 F. 3d 71 (2d Ci r. 2 00 6), there is no doubt that River s’s consti tutional rights were violated when the Department of Co rre cti on s ad

m ini str ati ve ly i m

po sed a 5 -ye ar t erm

of su pe rvi sed rel eas e th at w as n ot o ral ly pronounced by the se ntencing judge . However, that ri ght was not clearly established in 1999, when Rivers was origi nally sent enced; in 2003, when River s began servi ng his term of supervised r elease; or in 2004, when he was sente nced to an addit ional 4 year s’ imprisonment for violati ng the terms of his supervise d release

. Se e S co tt v . F isc he r , No . 0 9- 14 51 -c v, 20 10 WL 29 91 08 5, at * 6 (2 d C ir. Au g. 2, 20 10 ) (r ight to have m an dator y te rm of su pe rvi sed rel eas e pro no un ced

bysenten cin g ju dg e n ot c learlyest ab lis he d unti l at lea st 2 00 6). Th ere fo re, de fe nd ants- ap pe lle es are e nti tle d to qu ali fi ed imm un ityfo r th os e ac tio ns
. Rivers also argues thatdefendants-appel lees viol ated his cons tituti onal right s by failing to r ele ase him

imm ed iat ely

af ter Ea rle ywa s d eci de d. Ev enaf

ter Ea rle y , however, it was not clearl y establi shed that River s had the ri ght to be imm ediatel y release d from custody. Se e Ea rle y , 451 F.3d at 77. (“Our rul ing is not i ntended to pre clude the st ate from m oving in the Ne w Y ork

co urt s to m od if

y E arl ey ' s se nte nc e to inc lud e th e m an dator y [ su pe rvi sed rel eas e] term.”). In April 2008, the New York Court of Appeals held that the failure of the sent encing judge to oral ly pronounce a t erm of supervised release was a procedural error that could be correct ed through res entencing. Pe op le v . S pa rb er , 1 0 N .Y .3 d 4 57 (20 08 ). T he Ne w Y ork Legislatur e provided a mechanism for such resentenci ng in June 2008. Se eN. Y. Co rre ct. Law § 601-d. Rivers was brought be fore a judge and rel eased less than two months later. Given the

1 ambiguity in the law between Ea rle yan d th e ti m e o f Rive rs’ s re lea se, de fe nd ants- ap pe lle es are entit led to q ua lif ied imm un ityon thi s cl aim

as w ell

.3

Accordingly, the judgment of the districtcourt here by is AFFIRMED.

FOR THECOURT : Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk