Washington v. City of New York

Background

Gregory A. Washington, proceeding without a lawyer, claimed that his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when his final parole revocation hearing was adjourned from December 14, 2017, to December 29, 2017. He alleged that his maximum expiration date was December 21, 2017, and that the adjournment caused him to be held unjustly between that date and the rescheduled hearing.

Washington asserted claims against, among others, Brigitte Fortune, the administrative law judge who presided over the parole revocation proceedings, and Glenda Bubb, the parole officer who requested the adjournment. Fortune and Bubb moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Washington’s operative complaint also sought injunctive relief.

Absolute immunity

The court explained that judges and prosecutors generally receive absolute immunity from private damages actions for acts performed as part of their adjudicatory or prosecutorial functions. Administrative law judges receive the same protection when performing adjudicatory acts because their role and the safeguards in agency adjudication are functionally comparable to those of judges. Parole officers also receive absolute immunity for prosecutorial acts involved in presenting a parole-revocation case.

The court recognized that absolute immunity does not cover every administrative act by such officials. It nonetheless concluded that the decision to seek or grant an adjournment of a final parole revocation hearing was closely connected to a specific adjudicatory proceeding. The court compared that decision to a judge’s scheduling of a trial and held that Fortune and Bubb had absolute immunity for their decisions concerning the two-week adjournment.

Because Washington could not seek damages from Fortune and Bubb for those decisions, the court dismissed the claims against them.

Injunctive relief and Edward Delrio

The court noted that Washington’s earlier complaints sought damages for each day he was allegedly held beyond his maximum expiration date. His second amended complaint added a request for injunctive relief. The court concluded that injunctive relief could not redress an alleged injury based only on past conduct and dismissed that request.

The court also addressed claims against Chief of Parole Edward Delrio. It stated that the docket suggested Delrio had not been served, had not appeared, and had not moved to dismiss. Even so, the court concluded that dismissal of the claims against Delrio was warranted because he had the same absolute immunity from personal liability as Bubb.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken granted the motion to dismiss. The court directed the Clerk to close the motion, mail Washington a copy of the Opinion and Order, and close the case.