09- 3592- pr C arnel l v. Pat er s on UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RU L I N G S B Y S U MM A R Y O R D E R D O N O T H A V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR AF TER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED BY FE DERA L RULE OF AP PE LLATE P RO CEDU RE 3 2 . 1 AND THI S COUR T’ S LOCAL RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A DO C U M EN T FI LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE 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 OT AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R M US T S ERVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY PARTY NO T REPRES ENTED BY CO UNSEL. A t a s tate dterm o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e S e c o n dC irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani elPatr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i ty of N ew Y ork, on the 14 day of Jul y, tw o thous and t en. th P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

GE RA RD E . L YNC H, DE NNY C HIN,

C i r cui tJudges .

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -- AN THO NY CA RN ELL, P lai nt i f f

-Appellant , v. N o. 09- 3592- pr DAV I D A. P ATE RS ON, GOV ERNOR, M I CHAEL R . B L O O M B E R G , M A Y O R , A N D R E W M . C U O M O , ATTO RN EY G ENER AL, NEW YO RK STATE DI VI SI ON OF PARO LE, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF N EW YO RK , NEW YO RK STATE DEPAR TM ENT OF CO RRECTI ON S, AN D N EW YO RK STATE DEP ARTM ENT OF C ORREC TI ONS RE CORD COORDI NATOR, D ef endant s -Appellees .

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -- F O R A P P E L L A N T : A n th o n y C a rn e ll, pro se , E as tE l m hur s t , N ew Y ork. FO R A PPE L L E E S: A ndrew M . C uo m o, A tt orney G eneral o f the St at e ofB ec au se C a rn e ll d o e s n o t argu e tha t th e d istri ct co u rterred in en teri n g su m m ary 1 j udgm entf

ordef endant s on hi s cl ai m th atm edi calt es t i ng pr ocedur es f ornew i nm at es cons t i tut e c rue l andunus ua l pu ni s hmen t , w e de e m anys uc h ar gu mentaband on e d. See L oSacco v. C i ty of

M i ddl et ow n, 71 F. 3d 88, 92- 93 ( 2d Ci r . 1995) ( hol di ng thatpr o s e l i t i gant ab an d o n ed issue insu ffi cien tl y raisedo n ap p ea l) . 2 N e w Y o rk ; B a rb a raD . U n d e rw o o d , S o licito r G e n e ra l; L aur a L. J ohns on, A s s i s t antSol i ci t orG ener al , N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork. A p p ea l f rom the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfor the E astern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (J o h n G le e s o n , Judge ). UP ON DUE C ONS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, AD J UDGE D, AND DE CR E E D th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s Ju l y 3 1 , 2 0 0 8 a n dJu l y 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 o r d e r s a r e AF F I RMED . P ro se p lain tiff A n th o n y C a rn e ll ap p e a ls fro m th e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f h is cl ai m thatN ew Y ork st at e pr i s on of f i ci al s vi ol at ed hi s ci vi l r i ght s by conf i ni ng hi m f

or l on ge rthan h i s s e nt e nc e . Se e U . S. Cons t . a mendV I I I ; 42 U . S. C . § 1983; Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) ( 6) . W e r evi ew the di s m i s s alof ac om pl ai ntde novo, acc ept i ng al l f actualal l egat i ons 1 as true and dr aw i ng a l l r eas onabl e i nf er ence s i n pl ai nt i f

f’ s f avor . See H ol m es v. G rubm an, 56 8 F . 3d 32 9, 33 5 (2d C i r. 2 0 0 9 ). In app l ying this st and ard, w e assum e the p art i es’ f ami l i ar i ty w i th the f

act s and r ecor d of

pr i orpr ocee di ngs , w hi ch w e r ef erence onl y as n e c e s s a ry t o e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i rm. 1 . P o st-R e lea se S up e rv isio n C laim C arnel l s ubm i t s thatdef endant s vi ol at ed hi s cons t i tuti on a lr i gh t s by addi ng a f i ve- year t erm o f pos t - r el eas e s upervi s i on t o hi s 2000 s ent ence f ors econd- degr ee bur gl ary.3

“G overnm entact or s have qua l i f i ed i m m uni ty [ f

r om ] § 1983 cl ai m s i ns of aras thei rconduct d o e s n o t v io late c lea rly e stab lish e dsta tu to ry o r c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts o f w h ich are a so n ab le per s on w oul d have know n. ” B ol m erv. O l i vei r a, 594 F . 3d 134, 141 ( 2d C i r . 2010) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i tt ed) ; s ee a l s o Pear s on v. C al l ahan, 129 S. C t . 808, 818 ( 2009) ( p e rmi tt i n g c o u rt s t o d e t e rmi n e f i r s twh e th e rr i g h twa s c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d ) . Atth e t i me C arnel l served hi s s ent ence , a t erm of pos t - r el eas e s upervi s i on w as aut om at i cal l y i m pos ed as partof any det erm i nat e se nt ence . See Peopl e v. A dams, 13 A . D . 3d 76, 76, 785 N . Y . S. 2d 331, 331 ( 1s tD ep’ t2004) ; Peopl e v. L i nds ey, 302 A . D . 2d 128, 129, 755 N . Y . S. 2d 118, 119 (3d D ep ’t2 0 0 3 ); P eo p le v. B loo m , 26 9 A . D . 2 d8 3 8 , 8 3 8 , 7 0 3 N . Y . S . 2 d7 6 3 , 7 6 3 (4th D ep ’t 2000) ; s ee al s o N . Y . P enalL aw § 70. 45( 1) (“ W hen a courti m pos es a det erm i nat e s ent ence i ts hal l i n each ca s e st at e notonl y the t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , butal s o an addi t i onalper i od of p o st- release sup erv isi o n . . . . ”). I n d ee d , C arn ell w as re lease din A p ri l 20 0 6 , b efo re a n y co u rt everques t i oned the cons t i tut i onal i ty of thi s pr act i ce. See Ear l ey v. M urr ay, 451 F. 3d 71, 76- 7 7 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (de cide dJu n e 9 , 2 0 0 6 ). A cc o rdin g ly , w e c o n clud e tha t defe n d an ts are ent i t l ed t o qual i f

i ed i m m uni ty on thi s cl ai m . C f . V i ves v. C i ty of

N ew Y ork, 405 F. 3d 115, 1 1 7 (2 dC ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ [S ]t a te o ffic ials a re e n tit led to re ly o n a p re su m p tiv e ly v a lidsta te s tatu te u n ti l and u n less the s tatu te i s d ec laredu n co n sti tuti o n al. ” (b rac k ets an dell ipse s o m itted)).4

2 . D e lay e dR e lea se C laim C arnel l cont ends thathe i s enti t l ed t o damages f orhavi ng been r el eas ed f r om the cus t ody of

the N ew Y ork St at e D epartm entof C orr ect i onalServi ces aft erhi s s ent ence actual l y expi r ed. C ount i ng C arnel l ’ s thr ee m i sdem eanors ent ence s cons ecut i vel y and as interrup ti n g h is term of po st- release sup erv isi o n , see N . Y . P en al L aw § § 7 0 . 1 5 , 7 0 . 2 5 (1)(b ), 7 0 .4 0 (3 ), th e d istric t c o u rt c o n c lu d e dth a t C a rn e ll w a s a c tu a llyre lea se dfo u r d a y s b e fo re h is p o st-re lea se su p erv isi o n sh o u ld h av e e n d ed . B ec au se h e w as n o t arrest ed for h is th ir d m isd e m e a n o r u n tilO c to b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 , C a rn e ll sub m its th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre din attr i but i ng t o hi s thi r d m i s demeanors ent ence the per i od betw een A ugus t10, 2005, w hen the d istric t co u rt sto p p e dc o u n tin g p a ro le ja il tim e , a n dO c to b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 , w h e n h e w a s a c tu a lly arr es t ed f

orpe t i tl ar ceny. U nderthi s c al cul at i on, Carnel l ’ s t erm of pos t - r el eas e s upervi s i on w o u ldh a v e e x p ire do n M a rc h 1 9 , 2 0 0 6 , tw e n ty -tw o d a y s b e fo re h is a c tu a l re lea se o n A p ril 10, 2006. B ut , on thatdat e, C arnel l w oul d s t i l l have ha d atl eas ta month r emai ni ng on the six -m o n th se n ten c e im p o se dfo llo w in g h is O c to b e r 2 5 p e titlar c e n y a rre st. T h u s, e v e n if C a rn e ll’s p o st-re lea se su p e rv isio n w o u ldh a v e e n d e dso o n e r th a n the d istric t co u rt th o u g h t, C arnel l s t i l l w oul d nothave be en ent i t l ed t o be re l eas ed f r om cus t ody unt i l A pr i l 25, 2006, f i f t een days af

t erhi s actualA pr i l 10, 2006 r el eas e. B ecaus e C arnel l cannots t at e an Ei ghth A m endmentcl ai m thathe w as hel d i n cus t ody beyond the t erm pr es cr i bed by l aw , s ee A C E qui p L t d. v. A m . E ng ’g C orp. , 315 F. 3d 151,5

155 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ( perm i tt i ng af f i rm ance on any gr ound appear i ng i n re cor d) , w e need not add res s the st at e’s qu al i fi ed im m un i ty argum ents . W e h av e c o n side redC arn ell ’s o ther arg u m en ts on ap p ea l and co n clud e tha t th ey are w i thoutm er i t . A ccor di ngl y, w e af f i rm the Jul y 31, 2008 and Jul y 29, 2009 or der s of the d istric t co u rt. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt