Court Opinion

ID: 9380530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-20 15:00:22.995513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:25.875898
License: Public Domain

21-956-pr
Peoples v. Leon, et al.
                                           In the
                    United States Court of Appeals
                                 For the Second Circuit
                                        ______________

                                      August Term, 2021

               (Argued: March 30, 2022              Decided: March 20, 2023)

                                     Docket No. 21-956-pr
                                       ______________

                                        LEROY PEOPLES,

                                                                Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                             –v.–

   GINA R. LEON, OFFENDER REHABILITATION COORDINATOR/ORC; CLINTON
 CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ELLEN E. ALEXANDER, BOARD OF PAROLE/COMMUNITY
  SUPERVISION, TINA M. STANFORD, CHAIRWOMAN; CHAIR/BOARD OF PAROLE,

                                                                Defendants-Appellants,

  JANE DOE, COMMISSIONER; BOARD OF PAROLE/COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, JOHN
       DOE, COMMISSIONER; BOARD OF PAROLE/COMMUNITY SUPERVISION,

                                                                Defendants.

                                       ______________

       Before:            LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, PARKER, and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges.
                                       ______________
      Appeal from an interlocutory order of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of New York (Kahn, J.) declining to grant Defendants-
Appellants summary judgment with respect to their claim that the New York
Board of Parole Commissioner who voted to impose special conditions of release
and the Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator who recommended the conditions
were absolutely or qualifiedly immune from suit. Because the Commissioner’s
challenged acts were quasi-judicial, we conclude that she is absolutely immune
from Plaintiff’s claims for damages.           We do not address the Offender
Rehabilitation Coordinator’s claim of absolute immunity, but conclude that she is
qualifiedly immune from Plaintiff’s damage claims because the challenged
conditions were not clearly unlawful at the time she recommended them. We
REVERSE the order and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                   ______________

                           KATE L. DONIGER, Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, New
                                York, NY (Joshua A. Matz, Kaplan Hecker & Fink
                                LLP, Washington, D.C.; Margaret M. Turner,
                                Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, New York, NY;
                                Samuel Weiss, Rights Behind Bars, Washington,
                                D.C., on the brief), for Leroy Peoples.

                           KEVIN HU, Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara D.
                                Underwood, Solicitor General, Jeffrey W. Lang,
                                Deputy Solicitor General, Kate H. Nepveu,
                                Assistant Solicitor General, on the brief), for Letitia
                                James, Attorney General State of New York,
                                Albany, NY, for Gina R. Leon, Ellen E. Alexander,
                                Tina M. Stanford.
                                  ______________

ROBINSON, Circuit Judge:

      At issue in this appeal is whether a corrections professional who

recommended that the Parole Board issue certain special conditions of release,

                                           2
Defendant Gina Leon (“Leon”), and a Parole Board Member on the panel that

imposed the conditions, Defendant Commissioner Ellen Alexander (“Alexander”),

are absolutely or qualifiedly immune from claims challenging the constitutionality

of those conditions and seeking monetary or injunctive relief. Plaintiff-Appellee

Leroy Peoples (“Peoples”) sued Defendants-Appellants for violating his First and

Fourteenth Amendment rights by recommending and imposing certain special

conditions of post-release supervision that he contends are unconstitutional. The

United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Kahn, J.)

denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on absolute and

qualified immunity, and Defendants appealed.

      We conclude that Alexander is entitled to absolute immunity for her quasi-

judicial actions in imposing the special conditions in 2018. We do not reach the

question whether Leon is entitled to absolute immunity, but conclude that she is

entitled to qualified immunity for her actions in recommending the challenged

conditions because the Internet-related First Amendment right at issue was not

clearly established at the time of her actions in 2018, and Peoples has failed to show

that the non-Internet related conditions violate Peoples’s clearly established due

process rights. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is REVERSED and

REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                          3
                               BACKGROUND

      In 2018, Peoples was an inmate serving a sentence in the New York

Department of Corrections and Community Supervision’s (“DOCCS”) custody

following convictions for two rapes, one in 1998 and one in 2003. His maximum

expiration date was June 7, 2019. His claims arise from an October 2018 decision

of the New York State Board of Parole (the “Board”) declining to grant him

discretionary early release and setting special conditions to be applied during

Peoples’s term of Post-Release Supervision (“PRS”) which would begin to run

when he was released from prison upon reaching his maximum expiration date.

      Leon was employed by DOCCS as an Offender Rehabilitation Counselor.

She retired in January 2020 and is no longer employed by DOCCS. In connection

with the Board’s October 2018 review, Leon made recommendations to the Board

regarding its imposition of special conditions upon Leroy’s release to PRS. Her

recommendations were based on her review of relevant documents and records,

and applicable directives, regulations, and statutes. The Board was not bound to

follow her recommendations.

      Alexander was employed by DOCCS and served as a Commissioner of the

Board. She was on the three-member Board panel that conducted Peoples’s parole

release interview in October 2018. The parole release interview was conducted

                                       4
pursuant to N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 9, §§ 8002.1–8002.3 (2023). In that

proceeding, Peoples had the opportunity to speak on his own behalf and to submit

written letters of support, his own written statement, and documentation of his

choosing.    In connection with its review of Peoples’s case, the Board panel

considered numerous factors, including records and documents concerning

Peoples’s criminal history, underlying offenses, and DOCCS discipline and

activities; letters from various individuals; and the parole packet submitted by

Peoples. See also N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 9 § 8002.2 (2023) (setting forth

considerations to guide the Board in its parole release decision-making). The

panel declined to grant Peoples discretionary early release, concluding that he

should be held until the maximum expiration date of the incarcerative component

of his sentence and then released subject to the thirty-six special conditions

recommended by Leon. The Board’s denial of discretionary early release and its

establishment of the special conditions to apply upon Peoples’s eventual release

were set forth in a single written decision.

       In November 2018, almost half a year before his release on special

conditions, Peoples initiated this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 He named

1 Peoples’s complaint included a host of other claims that were dismissed by the district court
and are not at issue on appeal.

                                              5
Alexander and Leon as defendants, alleging in relevant part that the imposition of

some of the special conditions violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment

rights. 2 He alleged that he was filing a Section 1983 action because there was no

process for appealing the special conditions.

       Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing in relevant part that the

claims for monetary and injunctive relief against Alexander were barred by

absolute judicial immunity, and that the claims against Alexander and Leon were

barred by qualified immunity. Defendants also defended the various challenged

conditions on the merits.

       Adopting the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the magistrate judge

in its entirety, the district court in relevant part dismissed on the merits Peoples’s

challenges to some but not all of the special conditions, concluded that disputed

issues of fact precluded a determination that Alexander was absolutely immune

from suit, concluded that disputed questions of fact precluded summary judgment

2 Peoples also named as a defendant Board Chair Tina Stanford. The district court dismissed
claims for money damages against Stanford in her official and individual capacities, as well as
the claims for injunctive relief against her in her individual capacity, but declined to dismiss the
claims for injunctive relief directed against her in her official capacity. Neither party has
challenged on appeal the district court’s judgment as to Stanford, and there is no dispute that
Peoples’s claim for injunctive relief against Stanford will continue to move forward without
regard to whether Peoples’s claims against Alexander and Leon survive. Oral Argument at 1:20
to 1:46. In addition, Peoples sued two unidentified defendants, but failed to take reasonable steps
to ascertain their identities through discovery. Peoples does not on appeal contest the district
court’s dismissal of all claims against the unnamed defendants.

                                                 6
for Alexander or Leon on the basis of qualified immunity, and dismissed claims

against Leon for declaratory or injunctive relief because she no longer worked for

DOCCS. Peoples v. Leon, No. 9:18-CV-1349 (LEK/ML), 2021 WL 977222 (N.D.N.Y.

Mar. 16, 2021). The challenges to special conditions that the district court did not

dismiss relate primarily, but not exclusively, to the use of the Internet and

computers. Defendants appealed, challenging the district court’s denial of their

motion for summary judgment with respect to absolute and qualified immunity

for Alexander and Leon. 3

                                STANDARD OF REVIEW

       We review a decision whether to grant summary judgment by looking at the

facts of a case anew, “resolving all ambiguities and drawing all permissible factual

inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” Washington v. Napolitano, 29 F.4th

93, 103 (2d Cir. 2022). Summary judgment is appropriate only in cases where no

genuine dispute of material fact exists, and judgment can be made as a matter of

law. Id. Nonfinal decisions are reviewable under the “collateral order doctrine,”

where a court “may review a denial of summary judgment based on qualified

immunity on an interlocutory basis if it may be resolved on stipulated facts, or on

3 Although Peoples was released on his maximum expiration date and then subjected to the
special conditions at issue in this case, as of the date of oral argument, he had returned to state
custody for violating his conditions of supervision.

                                                7
the facts that the plaintiff alleges are true, or on the facts favorable to the plaintiff

that the trial judge concluded the jury might find.” Id. (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted). The same is true for the denial of absolute immunity.

Id.

                                    DISCUSSION

      Defendants argue that Alexander and Leon are entitled to absolute

immunity because the recommendation and imposition of parole conditions were

quasi-judicial acts. In the alternative, they contend that Alexander and Leon are

entitled to qualified immunity because the First Amendment right to Internet

access was not clearly established in October 2018 when the Board set the special

conditions, and the remaining conditions did not violate due process. They deny

that disputed issues of material fact preclude an award of summary judgment on

the immunity issues.

      Peoples argues that interlocutory review of Alexander’s and Leon’s claimed

immunity is unwarranted because disputed issues of material fact remain. Even

if the district court’s judgment is reviewable, Peoples contends that Alexander is

not entitled to absolute immunity because her imposition of parole conditions was

not a discretionary judicial act, and Leon waived any claim of absolute immunity

by failing to raise it before the district court. Peoples also argues that Alexander

                                           8
and Leon are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated his clearly

established rights.

       For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that Alexander is entitled to

absolute immunity. We do not address Leon’s argument for absolute immunity,

but conclude that she is entitled to qualified immunity. We conclude that there

are no material issues of disputed fact that prevent us from reviewing and

resolving these questions on interlocutory appeal.

I.     Absolute Immunity: Alexander 4

       Alexander argues that she is entitled to absolute immunity for her role in

the Board’s establishment of Peoples’s special conditions of release because she

was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. 5 We agree. The factors that have led this

Court to extend judicial immunity to parole board members’ decisions to grant or

4  Peoples argues that Alexander waived her argument for absolute immunity because her
objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R was inadequate. See Plaintiff-Appellee’s Br. at 23–26.
Our review of Defendants’ objections to the magistrate’s R&R does not support Peoples’s
contention. See Jt. App’x 640–46. Moreover, although the district court suggested that
Alexander’s briefing of this issue to the magistrate was insufficiently nuanced, it did not, as
Peoples suggests, conclude that Alexander’s objections to the R&R were insufficient. See Peoples,
2021 WL 977222 at *5. We conclude that Alexander did not waive her argument that she is entitled
to absolute immunity.

5 We decline to consider Leon’s argument for absolute immunity, which was raised for the first
time on appeal. See Moll v. Telesector Res. Grp., Inc., 760 F.3d 198, 204 (2d Cir. 2014). We choose
not to address the argument because we conclude in any event that Leon is entitled to qualified
immunity which insulates her from, at a minimum, monetary damages. Because she retired in
2020, the district court properly dismissed all claims against her for injunctive and declaratory
relief.

                                                9
deny parole logically extend to their imposition of special conditions of release.

The possibility that some conditions may be statutorily mandated does not

transform the setting of special conditions into an administrative rather than

quasi-judicial act. For these reasons, we have not identified any material disputed

facts that would preclude granting Alexander’s motion for summary judgment

that she is entitled to absolute immunity.

      Absolute immunity for judges is “firmly established” for acts “committed

within their judicial jurisdiction.” Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199–200 (1985)

(citation omitted).

      The Supreme Court has extended absolute immunity to others “who

perform functions closely associated with the judicial process,” such as federal

hearing examiners and administrative law judges. Id. at 200. In determining

whether absolute immunity applies, the Supreme Court has endorsed a

“functional” approach that focuses on “the nature of the responsibilities of [an]

individual official,” rather than the official’s rank, title, or “location within the

[g]overnment.” Id. at 201 (quoting Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 511 (1978)). The

Supreme Court has identified a non-exhaustive set of factors characteristic of the

                                          10
judicial process which may be considered when determining whether absolute

immunity applies:

             (a) the need to assure that the individual can perform
             [their] functions without harassment or intimidation;
             (b) the presence of safeguards that reduce the need for
             private damages actions as a means of controlling
             unconstitutional conduct; (c) insulation from political
             influence; (d) the importance of precedent; (e) the
             adversary nature of the process; and (f) the correctability
             of error on appeal.

Id. at 202 (citing Butz, 438 U.S. at 512).

      This Court has recognized that parole board officials deciding to grant or

deny parole perform a sufficiently quasi-judicial function to qualify for absolute

immunity. See Montero v. Travis, 171 F.3d 757, 761 (2d Cir. 1999) (“[W]e join our

sister circuits and hold directly that parole board officials, like judges, are entitled

to absolute immunity from suit for damages when they serve a quasi-adjudicative

function in deciding whether to grant, deny or revoke parole.”). In Montero we

explained, “[t]he concerns that provide the primary rationales for affording judges

absolute    immunity       when     performing    actions    within    their    judicial

capacity . . . apply with equal force to parole board officials deciding whether to

grant, deny or revoke parole.” Id. at 760. In particular, we recognized that, like

judges, if parole board officials had to fear adverse consequences from their parole

                                             11
decisions, “they would experience great difficulty in rendering impartial

decisions, a responsibility essential to the proper functioning of the penal system.”

Id. We noted that absent immunity, “parole board officials, like judges, may find

themselves spending an inordinate amount of time and expense defending against

baseless suits brought by disappointed parolees, thereby distracting parole board

officials from their crucial duties in administering the state’s penal system.” Id. at

761.

       We have not previously decided whether the Board’s act of imposing special

conditions of release is similarly subject to judicial immunity, but we conclude that

the statutory structure, the logic of our decision in Montero, the general process by

which these special conditions were set, application of the Cleavinger factors, and

persuasive authority from other circuits all support extension of judicial immunity

to Board members’ determination of conditions of post-supervision release.

       The Board has “the power and duty of determining the conditions of release

of the person who may be presumptively released, conditionally released or

subject to a period of post-release supervision.”       N.Y. EXEC. LAW § 259-c(2)

(McKinney 2022). This power coexists with the Board’s undisputed quasi-judicial

power to grant, deny, or revoke parole: “[t]he state board of parole shall . . . have

the power and duty of determining which incarcerated individuals serving an

                                         12
indeterminate or determinate sentence of imprisonment may be released on

parole . . . and when and under what conditions.” Id. § 259-c(1) (emphasis added).

This statutory language connects the parole board’s acts of granting, denying, or

revoking parole directly to its determination of special conditions.

       Moreover, our observations in Montero about the impact of allowing

disappointed would-be parolees to sue Board members for denying parole apply

in comparable measure to the potential impact of allowing individuals dissatisfied

with their conditions of release to sue Board members for damages.

       Although Peoples contests some of the specifics of the Board’s process, he

does not meaningfully contest that a panel of the Board conducted an interview at

which he had the opportunity to speak and present his case, that the panel

considered a range of information in making its discretionary early release

decision in Peoples’s specific case, and that it then issued a single decision

encompassing both its denial of early release and its setting of conditions. 6 The

6  Peoples disputes that Alexander “reviewed and considered numerous factors, records and
documents concerning [Peoples]” because he does not know the numerous factors involved due
to the fact that “no manual [is] available to pre-releasee[]s that explain[s] the[] factors consulted.”
Jt. App’x at 664. This dispute is not material, because he does not contest that the Board
conducted a review; he just says he does not know exactly how the Board went about it. Finally,
he disputes that speaking in front of the panel would have “bore [any] fruit.” Id. This is an
opinion, and not a dispute of material fact.

                                                  13
proceedings in this case undisputedly bore the general indicia of a quasi-judicial

process.

      Furthermore, consideration of the Cleavinger factors reinforces our

conclusion. As noted above, the need to assure that the individual can perform

their functions without harassment or intimidation was the primary factor we

relied upon in Montero; it applies to the setting of special conditions as well as the

decision to grant or deny parole. In addition, as for judges, the laws surrounding

the selection and tenure of Board members are designed to insulate them from

political influence. Cleavinger, 474 U.S. at 202. Board members are appointed by

the governor with the advice and consent of the senate; they serve for a fixed term

and may be removed only for cause after an opportunity to be heard; the board

“function[s] independently of the [DOCCS] regarding all of its decision-making

functions”; and board members are precluded from holding other public office or

serving as an executive officer or employee of any political organization. N.Y.

EXEC. LAW § 259-b(1). The absence of a formal procedure for appealing Board

decisions setting special conditions of release is a factor that counsels against

recognizing absolute immunity in this setting. See Mitchell v. Fishbein, 377 F.3d 157,

173 (2d Cir. 2004) (“[I]n the context of determining whether absolute immunity is

appropriate Article 78 proceedings are generally not considered adequate avenues

                                         14
for appeal.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). But we are mindful

that Peoples’s claim for injunctive relief against Board Chair Stanford in her

“official capacity” is unaffected by our analysis. 7 For these reasons, we conclude

that, on balance, extension of absolute immunity to Board members’ setting special

conditions is consistent with the Cleavinger factors.

         Other circuits have reached a similar conclusion. See Thornton v. Brown, 757

F.3d 834, 839–40 (9th Cir. 2013) (“We have held that absolute immunity extends to

parole officials for the imposition of parole conditions because that task is

integrally related to an official’s decision to grant or revoke parole, which is a

quasi-judicial function.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Mayorga

v. Missouri, 442 F.3d 1128, 1131 (8th Cir. 2006) (“[A]bsolute immunity applies if

parole officials have the power to attach conditions to a prisoner’s early release.”).

         Peoples’s argument that absolute immunity does not apply because the

Board lacked the discretion to decline to impose some or all of the challenged

conditions does not persuade us otherwise.                Peoples contends that judicial

immunity protects adjudicative acts, but not administrative ones, and that the

7   We express no opinion about what other avenues for review may be available to Peoples.

                                               15
imposition of a mandatory condition—a matter with respect to which the Board

has no discretion—is necessarily an administrative act.

      We agree that absolute immunity attaches to the types of acts that are infused

with adjudicatory discretion, whereas Board actions that do not generally involve

the exercise of adjudicatory discretion are not subject to judicial immunity. Cf.

Scotto v. Almenas, 143 F.3d 105, 112–13 (2d Cir. 1998) (declining to extend absolute

prosecutorial immunity to a parole officer who was required by law to report a

parolee’s violation of a condition of parole, but applying absolute prosecutorial

immunity to a parole officer who made a discretionary decision to sign an arrest

warrant initiating parole revocation proceedings). But in determining whether the

imposition of special conditions is the kind of quasi-adjudicatory act that qualifies

for absolute immunity, we do not parse the discretionary nature of each particular

special condition; instead, we consider the nature of imposing special conditions

more generally. After all, even judges in sentencing are sometimes bound by

statutory mandates minimizing or eliminating their sentencing discretion, but that

doesn’t render their imposition of such sentences administrative rather than

adjudicatory.

                                         16
II.    Qualified Immunity: Leon 8

       Leon argues that she should receive qualified immunity for her work

recommending both the Internet and non-Internet conditions.                           Qualified

immunity “shields both state and federal officials” from private suits for damages

unless they “violated a statutory or constitutional right that . . . was clearly

established at the time of the challenged conduct.” Terebesi v. Torreso, 764 F.3d 217,

230 (2d Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). In evaluating a claim of qualified immunity,

we must determine whether any constitutional right that the defendant violated

“was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Wilson v. Layne, 526

U.S. 603, 609 (1999) (quoting Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286, 290 (1999)).

       A right is “clearly established if the contours of the right are sufficiently clear

that a reasonable official would understand that what [they are] doing violates

that right.” McKinney v. City of Middletown, 49 F.4th 730, 738 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting

Taravella v. Town of Wolcott, 599 F.3d 129, 133 (2d Cir. 2010)) (internal quotation

marks omitted). However, this does not mean that “an official action is protected

by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held

8 Peoples argues that Leon waived her argument for qualified immunity because of inadequate
objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R. Our review of the substance of the decision persuades
us that the magistrate’s conclusions were clearly wrong. Given that the waiver rule is
nonjurisdictional, we excuse any possible waiver “in the interests of justice.” Roldan v. Racette,
984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993).

                                               17
unlawful, but it is to say that in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must

be apparent.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987) (internal citation

omitted); see also White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 79 (2017) (explaining that for a right to

be clearly established, “existing precedent must have placed the statutory or

constitutional question beyond debate” (citation omitted)).

      For purposes of determining whether Leon violated Peoples’s clearly

established rights when she made her recommendations in October 2018, we

divide Peoples’s remaining challenges to the special conditions imposed by the

Board into two categories: Internet-related conditions, and other conditions.

      A.     Internet Conditions

      The bulk of the conditions Peoples challenges restrict his access to the

Internet by, among other things, prohibiting him from accessing commercial social

networking sites or Internet-enabled gaming activities, and prohibiting him from

possessing a computer or Internet-enabled communication device. Peoples argues

that these restrictions deprived him of his constitutional right to Internet access.

      Leon argues that the right to Internet access for individuals in post-release

community supervision was not clearly established until this Court’s January 2019

decision in United States v. Eaglin—three months after Leon recommended

Peoples’s special conditions. 913 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2019). In Eaglin, this Court

                                           18
concluded that “the imposition of a total Internet ban as a condition of supervised

release inflicts a severe deprivation of liberty” that will only be substantively

reasonable in “highly unusual circumstances.” Id. at 97.

       We agree with Leon that Peoples’s constitutional right to Internet access was

not clearly established at the time Leon undertook the acts for which he seeks to

hold her liable. 9 In reaching this conclusion we consider the Supreme Court’s

watershed 2017 decision in Packingham v. North Carolina, as well as subsequent

decisions within this Circuit. 582 U.S. 98 (2017).

       In Packingham, the Supreme Court considered a North Carolina law that

made it a felony for a registered sex offender to access any commercial social

networking website where the offender knows that minor children may become

members. Id. at 101. The Supreme Court recognized the central role of the Internet

in modern society as a place for the “exchange of views,” id. at 104, and concluded

that the statute in question enacted a prohibition “unprecedented in the scope of

[the] First Amendment speech it burdens,” id. at 107. The Court concluded that

9 Peoples emphasizes that the actual deprivation of his constitutional rights occurred in June 2019,
when he was released from custody and subjected to the challenged special conditions. By that
time, this Court had decided Eaglin, and the constitutional right at issue was well-established.
However, the acts for which Peoples seeks to hold Leon liable involve her recommendation to the
Board concerning his special conditions. We find no allegations in Peoples’s complaint of any
acts, or failures to act, by Leon after the October 2018 proceeding.

                                                19
“to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging

in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.” Id. at 108. It added:

               [i]t is unsettling to suggest that only a limited set of
               websites can be used even by persons who have
               completed their sentences. Even convicted criminals—
               and in some instances especially convicted criminals—
               might receive legitimate benefits from these means for
               access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to
               reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives.

Id. The Court also added that though the issue was not before it, “it can be

assumed that the First Amendment permits a State to enact specific, narrowly

tailored laws that prohibit a sex offender from engaging in conduct that often

presages a sexual crime,” and that laws of that type must be the State’s “first

resort.” Id. at 107. It also found “troubling” that “the [North Carolina] law

impose[d] severe restrictions on persons who [have] already . . . served their

sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice

system.” Id.

      The Supreme Court’s language in Packingham was broad, and its analysis

did not turn on the fact that the individuals impacted by the North Carolina statute

were no longer subject to state supervision. Nevertheless, following Packingham,

district courts in our circuit split regarding whether Packingham clearly established

a First Amendment right to Internet access for individuals under state supervision.

                                           20
In Yunus v. Robinson, a district court upheld a claim of qualified immunity, even

while concluding that a condition of release was unconstitutional under

Packingham. 10 No. 17-CV-5839 (AJN), 2019 WL 168544, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11,

2019). In that case, an offender whose offense did not include any sexual elements

was subjected to parole conditions broadly restricting his Internet access. The

district court determined that the plaintiff pled a First Amendment claim on the

merits, but concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity

because it had not been established in the jurisdiction that Packingham applied to

conditions of supervised release and a number of other federal courts had

indicated that it might not. Id. at *17. For that reason, “the constitutional question

of Packingham’s application in this context was not beyond debate.” Id.

       On the other hand, in Ennis v. Annucci, a district court read Packingham as

establishing a First Amendment right and cited state and federal cases from

around the country that had “invalidated a variety of broad-based internet or

social media restrictions imposed on sex offenders simply because they are sex

offenders.” No. 5:18-CV-0501 (GTS/TWD), 2019 WL 2743531, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. July

1, 2019) (citation omitted). The court concluded that the defendants were entitled

10The Yunus decision was released the same day as Eaglin and accordingly does not rely in any
way on that Second Circuit decision.

                                             21
to qualified immunity for any deprivation of First Amendment rights the plaintiff

suffered prior to Packingham, but not thereafter. Id. at *8–9.

      In light of this history, we conclude that the right of individuals on post-

release supervision to be free from broad restrictions on access to the Internet was

not clearly established until the Eaglin decision in January 2019. Because every

allegedly wrongful act by Leon occurred in 2018, we conclude that she is entitled

to qualified immunity with respect to those acts.

      B.     Non-Internet Conditions

      Peoples challenges two other special conditions recommended by Leon and

imposed by the Board. One provides that Peoples must “comply with all case

specific sex offender conditions to be imposed by the P.O.” Jt. App’x at 43. The

other requires Peoples to “provide copies of financial documents to [the] parole

officer upon request.” Jt. App’x at 44. These documents “may include, but are not

limited to, all credit card bills, bank statements, and income tax returns.” Id.

Peoples argues that these conditions violate his due process right not to be subject

to vague and arbitrary special conditions, and the financial condition violates his

due process rights because it is not reasonably related to his past conduct. Leon,

in turn, argues that she is protected from Peoples’s claims by qualified immunity.

                                         22
      We need not at this juncture resolve Peoples’s challenges on the merits. As

above, the question is whether “[t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear

that a reasonable official would understand that what [they are] doing violates

that right.” Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640. We conclude that neither condition was so

clearly unlawful when Leon recommended it that its unlawfulness would have

been apparent to any reasonable official.

      1. “Case-specific” Conditions

      With respect to the condition requiring Peoples to comply with “case

specific sex offender conditions to be imposed by the P.O.,” Jt. App’x at 43, Peoples

relies heavily on the general principle that “[d]ue process requires that the

conditions of supervised release be sufficiently clear to give the person of ordinary

intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited.” United States

v. Simmons, 343 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted). But he does not explain how the challenged condition falls short on that

measure, nor does he cite any cases in which courts have invalidated comparable

conditions.

      Because he would be given notice of any specific condition actually imposed

by his parole officer, Peoples would not have to “guess” what was expected of

him. See LoFranco v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 986 F. Supp. 796, 808 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff'd,

                                          23
175 F.3d 1008 (2d Cir. 1999) (“A special condition of parole that is so vague that a

person of common knowledge must guess at its meaning will be struck down as

void for vagueness.”).

      To the extent Peoples is challenging the delegation of broad authority to the

parole officer, we note that parole officers are statutorily authorized to impose

special conditions. See N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 9, § 8003.3 (“Each special

condition may be imposed by a member or members of the [Board], an authorized

representative of the Division of Parole, or a parole officer.”). Peoples has not cited

any law narrowing this authority. In sum, Peoples has failed to demonstrate that

Leon’s recommendation of these case-specific conditions violated his clearly

established rights.

      2. Financial Monitoring

      Peoples argues that the condition requiring him to provide financial

documents to his parole officer on request is vague, overbroad, and not sufficiently

tied to his underlying offenses. He cites cases supporting the general proposition

that conditions should be reasonably or necessarily related to legitimate state

interests in light of the crime and conduct underlying an offender’s conviction.

See, e.g., Trisvan v. Annucci, 284 F. Supp. 3d 288, 297 (E.D.N.Y. 2018). But he does

not cite any decisions in which the Supreme Court, this Court, or even other courts

                                          24
in this Circuit disapproved financial monitoring conditions similar to the one he

challenges.

      We conclude that the imposition of the financial disclosure condition in this

case was not so clearly unlawful as to defeat Leon’s qualified immunity from

Peoples’s claims. This Court previously joined at least two sister circuits in

reasoning that “monitoring an offender’s finances deters the offender from

returning to a life of crime by forcing [them] to account for [their] income.” United

States v. Brown, 402 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir. 2005). To be sure, the fit between the

financial disclosure condition and Peoples’s underlying convictions for rape is

more tenuous, but in the absence of more authority from Peoples, we cannot

conclude that the condition so clearly violated his legal rights as to defeat Leon’s

qualified immunity.

                                  CONCLUSION

      For the reasons set forth above, we hold that Alexander is entitled to

absolute immunity for her acts in 2018, and Leon is entitled to qualified immunity

for her acts in 2018. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment denying summary

judgment for Defendants on these issues is REVERSED and the case is

REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                         25