Graham v. Fischer et al

Filing 15

OPINION AND ORDER: The imposition by DOCS of PRS on plaintiffs did not violate "'clearly established... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,'" Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 815 (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818), at the time DOCS imposed that PRS between February 2003 and the Second Circuit decision in Earley v. Murray, 451 F.3d 71. Defendants are thus entitled to qualified immunity for their roles in imposing PRS on these plaintiffs. Similarly, to the extent that Coleman brings claims against defendant parole officers Del Rio, Zwaryczuk, Cudney, Henry, and Martinez for actions taken immediately after the Second Circuit decided Earley, those actions were privileged. The Court has denied plaintiffs& #039; claims for injunctive relief in a separate Order and Opinion dated today and has declined to exercise jurisdiction over the claims for declaratory relief. Accordingly, defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint in each of these three actions are granted. (Signed by Judge Sidney H. Stein on 3/31/2010) (jpo)