Skip navigation
× You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.

Parole Denial for Lack of Sex Offender Treatment Upheld

The plaintiff, a convicted sex offender, was denied parole inter alia because he failed to participate in mental health counseling or sex offender treatment. Later he refused to agree to a program plan which would have remedied those lacks. Then he was denied parole a second time on similar grounds. He continued to refuse program participation and his classification was downgraded.

A statute requiring such program participation as a condition of parole eligibility is not an ex post facto law applied to the plaintiff because everybody agrees it does not apply to the plaintiff. The parole board may use his lack of participation as a basis for parole denial independent of the statute.

The plaintiff has no basis for claiming imminent harm and seeking a preliminary injunction, since the defendants have not forced him to participate in anything; they've just denied him privileges for refusing. (Wrong. This is, essentially, a retaliation case.)

The plaintiff is denied a stay of defendants' summary judgment motion because he fails to state with specificity how more time would allow him to obtain evidence that would help him to oppose the motion. See: Johnstone v. Simmons, 45 F.Supp.2d 1220 (D.Kan. 1999).

As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case

Johnstone v. Simmons