DECISION AND ORDER Paul Betances, Lloyd A. Barnes, and Gabriel Velez — individually and on behalf of others similarly situated — bring this class action against Brian Fischer, Anthony J. Annucci, and Terence Tracy (collectively, “Defendants”) for violations of their civil rights. The District Court previously found Defendants personally liable; the Second Circuit affirmed and remanded the case to determine the appropriate remedies. The parties consented to jurisdiction before this Court for the remainder of proceedings. Defendants have moved for partial summary judgment on several issues, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.Background1The facts and history of this case have been set forth in several prior opinions. See Bentley v. Dennsion, 852 F. Supp. 2d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity in both this class action and a related action with individual plaintiffs), affirmed sub nom, Betances v. Fisher, 519 Fed. App’x 39 (2d Cir. July 8, 2014) (“Betances I”); Betances v. Fischer, 144 F. Supp. 3d 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (“Betances II”) (summary judgment finding Defendants personally liable for violating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights); Betances v. Fisher, 837 F.3d 162, 165 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Betances III”) (affirming Betances II and remanding for appropriate remedies). The related action Bentley remains stayed pending the outcome of this case; accordingly, only Defendants in this case have moved for summary judgment. The Court summarizes here only the history and facts most relevant to this decision.A. The PartiesPlaintiffs were convicted of violent felonies and sentenced by New York State courts. Although state law required imposition of post-release supervision (“PRS”) following incarceration, the sentencing courts for these individuals failed to include any term of PRS when sentencing them. During Plaintiffs’ incarceration, however, the administrators responsible for incarceration and parole imposed PRS terms. After being released, each named Plaintiff was then reincarcerated for a period of time based on their violation of the terms of the administratively imposed PRS.Defendants are the three individuals remaining in the case based on their having administratively imposed PRS, despite their awareness that such conduct was unconstitutional. Anthony Annucci was counsel for New York Department of Correctional Services (“DOCS”) from September 1989 until October 2007, when he became deputy commissioner and counsel (a position he served until December 2008). Brian Fischer served as the commissioner of DOCS from January 2007 to April 2011. Terence Tracy was the chief counsel for the New York Division of Parole (“Parole”) from December 1996 until March 2011.2B. Imposition of Post-Release SupervisionIn 1998, the New York Legislature passed a new sentencing scheme requiring courts to impose mandatory PRS on defendants found guilty of certain violent felonies. See N.Y. Penal Law §70.45(1). The pre-2008 version of §70.45 required the sentencing court to include a period of PRS as part of the detriment sentence. Some judges, however, did not state PRS terms during sentencing proceedings.3 Betances III, 837 F.3d at 165. As a result, some defendants entered DOCS custody without a judicially imposed sentence of PRS. Id. Instead of informing the sentencing court of this omission, however, DOCS “simply added the PRS term administratively.” Id. Operations then ran as usual with DOCS informing Parole, near a defendant’s prison release date, of the dates and duration of that defendant’s PRS. Parole then supervised the defendant while on PRS. Id. If a defendant released on PRS violated his or her terms of PRS, DOCS took charge of that defendant’s reincarceration. Id.C. Administratively-Imposed PRS Held UnconstitutionalOn June 9, 2006, the Second Circuit held that administrative imposition of PRS by DOCS was unconstitutional. Earley v. Murrary, 451 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006) (“Earley”), rehearing denied, 462 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2006), cert, denied, 551 U.S. 1159 (2007). The Second Circuit remanded and directed the district court to excise PRS from Earley’s sentence if he had timely filed his habeas corpus petition. Id. The Court noted, however, that its Earley ruling was “not intended to preclude the state from moving in the New York courts to modify Earley’s sentence to include the mandatory PRS term.” Id. at 77.D. Defendants’ Failure To Timely Implement EarleyNew York district attorneys, DOCS, the state courts, and the New York State Office of Court Administration (“OCA”) each had varied responses to the Earley decision, all of which culminated in an approximate period of two years when state actors continued to administratively impose PRS despite being aware of Earley.For instance, after Earley, New York district attorneys did not seek resentencings in cases involving PRS, not even for Earley himself. (Defendants’ 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“Def. 56.1″),
1-2). Further, some district attorneys and judges continued to take the position that PRS could continue to be automatically included in a defendant’s sentence as a matter of statutory interpretation. (Plaintiffs’ Response and Counter Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“Pl. Response to Def. 56.1″) at 1.); Bentley, 852 F. Supp. 2d at 393-94. Only in April 2008, after the New York Court of Appeals held that New York law required a judge to pronounce a term of PRS at sentencing, did the New York County District Attorney begin seeking resentencings. (Def. 56.1 3.); see People v. Sparber, 10 N.Y.3d 457, 469-70, 859 N.Y.S.2d 582, 587 (2008) (finding that the administrative addition of PRS was not a valid statutory interpretation of N.Y. Penal Law §§70.00, 70.45(1)); Matter of Garner v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 10 N.Y.3d 358, 362-63, 859 N.Y.S.2d 590, 593 (2008) (specifically prohibiting DOCS from imposing PRS); Betances III, 837 F.3d at 166.Shortly following Earley, Defendant Annucci requested that OCA “put together an instructional reminder to all Criminal Term judges advising them to impose the PRS period on the record at sentencing, regardless of the automatic nature of §70.25.” (Declaration of Anthony J. Annucci dated May 8, 2015 (“Annucci Decl.”), attached as Exhibit E to Declaration of Michael J. Keane, dated August 8, 2018,4 at 11.) Nonetheless, Annucci only took “objectively reasonable steps” to comply with Earley as of spring 2008, nineteen months after it was decided. Betances III, 837 F.3d at 172. Meanwhile, OCA did not contact the courts until September 2007, when it issued a reminder recommending, but not requiring, the courts to pronounce PRS, and acknowledging that further guidance on the validity of administratively-imposed PRS was needed from the New York State Court of Appeals. (Def. 56.1
