Marquez v. Annucci

Background

Maritza Marquez and Yancy Marquez each served prison terms for serious sex offenses and remained subject to New York post-release supervision. Their supervision conditions generally prohibited association with people known to have criminal records. Parole officials also imposed special conditions barring them from contacting each other.

The plaintiffs met after their releases, married on September 6, 2015, and continued to seek permission to see each other. They were arrested and found to have violated their supervision conditions after marrying. The restrictions remained in place, and officials later used GPS monitoring on both plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that the restrictions prevented them from living together as a married couple and violated substantive and procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. They brought the action under Section 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations by state actors.

Motion to Dismiss

The court held that claims based on conduct occurring before March 5, 2017, were barred by the three-year statute of limitations. It also held that claims against officials who lacked alleged personal involvement during the relevant period could not proceed. The court therefore dismissed the claims against Rosa Nunez, Kevin Uzzell, Alexandra Manderson, and Brian Fuller with prejudice because their alleged supervision ended before March 2017. It dismissed the claims against M. Medina because the complaint alleged only supervisory involvement after March 2017, but allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint against Medina based on documents suggesting possible direct involvement during the limitations period. The claims against M. Medina were dismissed without prejudice to repleading with sufficient allegations of personal involvement during that period.

The court dismissed the claims against McEwen because the complaint did not allege that she enforced an unconstitutional condition and instead alleged that she allowed the plaintiffs to see each other. It dismissed the claims against R. Hamilton because the alleged role after March 2017 was supervisory rather than direct. Those claims were dismissed with prejudice.

The court rejected the defendants’ qualified-immunity argument at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Qualified immunity can protect officials from damages when the alleged right was not clearly established, but the court held that the rights to marry and maintain family relationships through intimate association were clearly established. The court also dismissed damages claims against officials in their official capacities under the Eleventh Amendment, while allowing damages claims against them in their individual capacities to remain. The motion to dismiss was denied in all other respects.

Preliminary Injunction

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is an early order preserving rights while a case continues. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their substantive due process challenge, likely to suffer harm that money could not remedy, and supported by the balance of equities and the public interest.

The court applied strict scrutiny, a demanding constitutional test requiring a restriction on a fundamental right to be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. It held that marriage and intimate family relationships receive strong constitutional protection. Although preventing repeat offenses is a compelling government interest, the court found that the defendants’ justifications for completely preventing the plaintiffs from associating were speculative and that the restrictions were not narrowly tailored. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ marriage was more likely to support lawful living than to increase the risk of reoffending.

The court did not decide the plaintiffs’ separate procedural due process argument, which asserted that they were entitled to a hearing before the restrictions were imposed. The court instead ruled on the claimed substantive due process violation.

Order and Further Proceedings

The preliminary injunction bars all defendants who remain in the case from creating or enforcing supervision conditions that prevent or interfere with the plaintiffs’ lawful relationship as a married couple. It also bars those defendants from forcing either plaintiff to wear GPS monitoring equipment. The parties were directed to settle the injunction’s terms, and the plaintiffs were permitted to file an amended complaint that could include timely allegations against M. Medina.