{"id":1773,"date":"2019-10-21T09:52:22","date_gmt":"2019-10-21T14:52:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1773"},"modified":"2019-10-21T14:51:19","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T19:51:19","slug":"bohn-v-cook-d-conn-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/10\/21\/bohn-v-cook-d-conn-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"Bohn v. Cook (D. Conn. 2019)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bohn v. Cook, No. 19- cv\u201301144 (D. Conn. 2019)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Plaintiff is incarcerated for a non-sexual offense, and based on a police report, Connecticut Department of Correction officials assigned him a sex offender risk score, which impacted his confinement and was a factor in the denial of his parole. Plaintiff never received a hearing in connection with this assignment, and his attempts to resolve the issue through the grievance process were unsuccessful.<\/p>\n

Plaintiff brought a federal \u00a7 1983 lawsuit, alleging that the classification violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as state law claims. State defendants moved to dismiss all claims.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> Connecticut District Court granted Defendants’ motion in part. Eighth Amendment and state law claims were dismissed, but the Court declined to dismiss Plaintiff’s Procedural Due Process claims.<\/p>\n

The Court explained that the Plaintiff had pleaded sufficient facts to allege that his classification implicated the “stigma plus” requirement for such a claim, and that he was not provided with the procedural rights to which he was otherwise entitled.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n