Inmate Spam incident highlights qualified immunity condundrum

The plaintiff in this case is a prisoner in the New York criminal justice system who claims the state violated due process when it revoked certain privileges that might have allowed him discretionary release from prison. The Court of Appeals finds that plaintiff may have suffered a due process violation. But he cannot recover any damages because the defendants have qualified immunity.

The case is Bangs v. Smith, issued on October 12. Under the rules, inmates who are locked up for certain non-violent offenses can earn "merit time allowances" to reduce their sentences by one-sixth. Once you get merit time allowance, you can appear before the Parole Board, which has authority to give you a discretionary release. Bangs was given a sentence of three to six years, and the minimum term of sentence would expire in September 2019. A year earlier, prison officials gave Bangs a merit time allowance because he successfully participated in vocational programming, and because of his positive inmate record. The Parole Board decided to grant a date for Bangs' release: March 13, 2019. I am sure this became the magic day for Bangs. 

But then prison officials issued Bangs a misconduct report alleging he gave another inmate a can of Spam. Yes, that Spam. Bangs then demanded that the prison guard return the Spam to him after it was confiscated. Bangs lost the internal disciplinary hearing over the Spam incident and the prison told the Parole Board that Bangs should not receive early release through parole after all. His merit time allowance was revoked. The Parole Board then rescinded the early release.

On appeal from the district court's order denying Bangs' due process case, the Court of Appeals holds first that Bangs may have a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause to take parole. But we have a qualified immunity problem. This immunity lets government defendants off the hook for damages claims if the law was not clearly-established at the time of the constitutional violation. The Courts need to find a case is quite similar to your case if you want to pierce the immunity. Otherwise, the case against that defendant is dismissed on the theory that she could not have anticipated how courts might decide future legal issues.

Qualified immunity knocks out Bangs' case because prior case law (which might on its face appear to help Bangs win his case) did not contemplate whether you have a due process claim when the prison denies you a hearing to revoke the merit time allowance because of an intervening  disciplinary infraction that takes place prior to the actual release date.