Legal Opinion

Wills v. United States Parole Commission

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided July 31, 2012No. Civil Action No. 2011-1464PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. Scott v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 2007

43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Chandler v. United States Parole CommissionDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
  2. Doe v. United States Parole CommissionDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
  3. (Leave of Court is Needed for Plaintiff) Chandler v. WilliamsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
  4. Mashatti v. LyonsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2026

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API