Devar Hurd v. Stacey Fredenburgh

It is uncontroverted that New York kept Petitioner incarcerated for almost a year past a release date required by state statutes. These statutes operate in a “mathematical” fashion to produce a “statutorily mandated release date,” as the court of appeals recognized. Pet. App. 5a. But the court nonetheless affirmed the dismissal of Petitioner’s Eighth Amendment claim on qualified immunity grounds, holding that “[i]t was not clearly established . . . that an inmate suffers harm of a constitutional magnitude under the Eighth Amendment” by being incarcerated for eleven months past a statutorily-mandated release date. Pet. App. 21a. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Petitioner’s Due Process claim, reasoning that in these circumstances it was not clearly established under the Fourteenth Amendment that Petitioner “ha[d] a liberty interest” in avoiding unauthorized incarceration for nearly a year past his mandatory release date. Pet. App. 21a. The questions presented are:

1. Whether prolonged incarceration past a statutorily-mandated release date is an objectively serious deprivation under clearly established Eighth Amendment law.

2. Whether there is a liberty interest in avoiding prolonged incarceration past a statutorily-mandated release date under clearly established Fourteenth Amendment law.