Wills v. United States Parole Commission
District Court, District of Columbia
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BERYL A. HOWELL, District Judge.
Plaintiff Joe Wills has never been convicted of a sex offense. Yet, after serving time in prison following a conviction for two misdemeanor drug offenses, he was informed that the United States Parole Commission (“Parole Commission”) had imposed a “Special Sex Offender Aftercare Condition” (“SOA”) on his supervised re lease. The SOA, which he was given no opportunity to appeal, required him to participate in mental health treatment, with a focus on long-term sex offender testing and treatment. A requirement of the SOA was that the plaintiff…
2Cases cited48 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Scott v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Chandler v. United States Parole CommissionDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- Doe v. United States Parole CommissionDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
- (Leave of Court is Needed for Plaintiff) Chandler v. WilliamsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- Mashatti v. LyonsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2026