RICHARD J. LEON, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. # 11].
In the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, plaintiff was convicted of assault on a police officer and destruction of property. See Defs.' Corrected Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. #12] ("Defs.' Mot."), Attach. 1 (Sentencing Monitoring Computation Data as of 12-15-2010). On completion of his prison term, on or about February 1, 2011, plaintiff began to serve a five-year term of supervised release under the supervision of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency ("CSOSA"). See Compl. at 1-2 [Dkt. #4] (page numbers designated by ECF); Defs.' Mot., Attach. 5 (Certificate of Supervised Release dated January 11, 2011). Based on a 1988 conviction in South Carolina for sexual misconduct with a minor, see Compl., Ex. (Sex Offender Registration Information), the United States Parole Commission ("USPC") imposed the following special condition:
Id., Ex. (excerpt from Certificate of Supervised Release).
Details of the South Carolina conviction came to the attention of Anthony Hinton, plaintiff's Community Supervision Officer ("CSO"):
Defs.' Mot., Attach. 6 (Letter from Anthony Hinton, CSO, CSOSA, to Rhonda Moore, Case Analyst, USPC, dated May 5, 2011) at 1; see id. (Presentence Investigation Report prepared by Youthful Offender Services Branch of the South Carolina
Id., Attach. 6 (May 5, 2011 Letter from Hinton to Moore) at 1. Plaintiff was notified of the proposed modification. Over plaintiff's objection, see id., Attach. 7 (Modification of Release Conditions) at 2, the USPC approved the following modification:
Id., Attach. 8 (Notice of Action dated June 13, 2011) at 1.
Plaintiff reportedly refused to participate in sex offender treatment. See generally id., Attach. 9 (Alleged Violation(s) Report dated November 1, 2011) at 2. He chose to discharge himself from two treatment programs in 2011. See id., Attach. 9 at 3. Plaintiff "was . . . referred to The Center for Clinical and Forensic Services Incorporated (CCFS) for a psychosexual risk assessment to determine his risk for continued criminal sexual behavior and his need for sex offender treatment." Id. Although plaintiff purportedly began the assessment phase, he refused to sign forms required for his continued participation. Id. CSO Hinton concluded that plaintiff "poses a potential risk to community safety based on his criminal history that includes a sex offense against a minor," and thus recommended a Reprimand and Sanctions Hearing. Id. at 4. The hearing took place on November 30, 2011, at which time plaintiff was ordered to "undergo a psychosexual risk assessment to determine whether [he is] a candidate for sex offender treatment." Compl., Ex. (USPC Reprimand and Sanctions Hearing dated November 30, 2011).
Plaintiff subsequently explained that he has participated in a sex offender assessment interview and has undergone and passed a sexual history polygraph test. Objection to Summ. J. Filed by the U.S. Attorney Office for District of Columbia [Dkt. #14] at 4. He represented that he has been excused from further assessment interviews, id., and that neither the USPC nor CSOSA "is currently . . . requiring [him] to undergo any sex offender treatment" notwithstanding the conditions set forth in the January 11, 2011 Certificate of Supervised Release. Pet. for a Judgment of the Legal Controversy Being Moot or a Pleading for the Appointment of Counsel by the Court [Dkt. #17] at 2.
The Court grants summary judgment "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A material fact is one "that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law," and further, a court will consider a dispute as genuine if "the evidence is such that a
Plaintiff does not dispute the fact of his South Carolina conviction. However, he erroneously "believes that [the USPC] is abusing its authority" by imposing conditions on the terms of his supervised release based on a 24-year old conviction. Compl. at 3. He noted that the Superior Court did not include or authorize sex offender treatment as a part of his criminal sentence. See id. And because the offenses of conviction are not sex offenses, and absent a designation by the Superior Court that he is a sexual psychopath, plaintiff has objected to long-term sex offender treatment. See id. at 2-3.
The USPC has jurisdiction over an offender serving a term of supervised release imposed by the Superior Court.
In short, the USPC had the authority to impose and to modify the conditions of plaintiff's supervised release.
There is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute, and plaintiff has not countered the USPC's showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court will grant summary judgment for defendant. An Order is issued separately.