On February 10, 2009, two parolees filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Michigan Parole Board in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Detroit Division. The plaintiffs, represented by several public interest organizations, asked the court for ...
read more >
On February 10, 2009, two parolees filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of Michigan Parole Board in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Detroit Division. The plaintiffs, represented by several public interest organizations, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the Parole Board's conditions of parole were unconstitutional. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the Special Conditions of the parole board in sex offender cases, imposed without input from the parolees, that limited romantic relationships, prohibited contact with their own children and minor siblings violated substantive due process.
Plaintiffs were both convicted of sex offenses. One was convicted of attempted criminal sexual conduct in the third degree. The other plaintiff pled no contest to criminal sexual conduct in the third degree. After periods of incarceration, both plaintiffs were eventually released on parole. As a condition of their parole, they were not allowed contact with any minors, even family members, and not allowed to maintain romantic relationships or cohabitate with anyone who had custody of minor children. One of the plaintiffs could not visit his parents (because his minor child resided with the parents). Another could not visit his fiancée because she had custody of a minor child.
On February 19, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the conditions because they were not directly related to rehabilitation. Plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew the motion, because a settlement was in sight.
On April 30, 2010, the Court (Judge Marianna Battani) approved a stipulation and ordered dismissal of the case because the parties had settled. The stipulation provided the plaintiffs would be allowed contact with their children, and that the plaintiffs could have contact with minors, provided an adult responsible for that minor was present. It also allowed plaintiffs to accompany their children to places in which other minors were present, as long as they did not initiate contact with other minors. Finally, the stipulation provided that the plaintiffs could date or marry a person with minor children, if first approved by the field agent.
The case was dismissed with prejudice.Blase Kearney - 05/15/2012