{"id":1905,"date":"2019-11-06T10:54:35","date_gmt":"2019-11-06T16:54:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1905"},"modified":"2020-01-01T12:44:16","modified_gmt":"2020-01-01T18:44:16","slug":"maldonado-v-mattingly-w-d-n-y-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/11\/06\/maldonado-v-mattingly-w-d-n-y-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"Maldonado v. Mattingly (W.D.N.Y. 2019)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Maldonado v. Mattingly, No. 11- CV\u20131091 (W.D.N.Y. 2019)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Plaintiff had brought a civil rights lawsuit, alleging Ex Post Facto and Due Process violations with respect to special conditions of supervision that were imposed on him by way of a “discretionary sex offender status.”<\/p>\n

Plaintiff had pleaded guilty to and was on supervision for a non-sexual offense, but had previously pled guilty to a sexual offense. Parole officers designated him as a “discretionary sex offender,” which resulted in numerous special conditions of supervision being imposed on him that would normally only be applicable in the case of someone who was on supervision for a sex offense. Plaintiff sought to challenge these conditions, and both Plaintiff and state Defendants sought summary judgment.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> Federal District Court for the Western District of New York granted summary judgment for the state Defendants with respect to all claims with the exception of Plaintiff’s allegations that the conditions of supervision prevented him from having contact with his children and prevented him from attending church services.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

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