Legal Opinion
Austin v. Reilly
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided March 25, 2009No. Civil Action 08-553 (RCL)PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the parole authority violated his constitutional protection against ex post facto laws. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Because the complaint fails to state an ex post facto claim upon which relief may be granted, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint will be granted and all other pending motions will be denied as moot.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Romes Austin was convicted in 1982 of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Weaver v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Charles Kowal v. MCI Communications CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1994
- Collins v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Miller v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Wilson v. FullwoodDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Nelson v. WilliamsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
- Jones v. United States Parole CommissionDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Daniel v. FulwoodDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Watson v. United States Parole CommissionDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.