Opinion ID: 794479
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Burke's Personal Involvement in the Imposition of the Special Condition

Text: 60 Farrell challenges two distinct state actions: the imposition of the Special Condition and its enforcement. The district court held that Farrell was not allowed to challenge the imposition of the Special Condition in this action because the defendants were not personally involved in its imposition. Farrell, 2004 WL 2813175 at -7, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24658, at -19. The court did not discuss whether Officer Freeman was personally involved in the imposition of the condition, but we assume that the court intended this finding as well, because it dismissed Farrell's entire claim for monetary and injunctive relief against the imposition of the Special Condition. Id. 2004 WL 2813175 at , 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24658 at . 61 It is well settled in this Circuit that personal involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983. Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496, 501 (2d Cir.1994) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Because personal involvement is a question of fact[,] we are governed by the general rule that summary judgment may be granted only if no issues of material fact exist and the defendant[ ] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Williams v. Smith, 781 F.2d 319, 323 (2d Cir.1986). 62 The district court reasoned that Burke was not personally involved in the imposition of the Special Condition because the record indicated that a prior parole officer, Martinez, imposed the Special Condition, while Burke merely continued it. At most, Parole Officer Burke advised Plaintiff that the Conditions imposed by Parole Officer Martinez were being continued; however, there is no evidence that he altered the rules or conditions of parole. Farrell, 2004 WL 2813175 at , 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24658, at -19. The district court erred, however, in failing to note that Burke and Freeman actually enforced the Special Condition by arresting Farrell, which would clearly constitute personal involvement in any violation of Farrell's constitutional rights.