Goings v. Court Services & Offender Supervision Agency
786 F. Supp. 2d 48
D.D.C.2011Background
- Goings, a DC resident, was convicted in Florida (2010) of sexual battery for sex with a 16-year-old inmate during his corrections officer tenure and received five years’ probation.
- Under ICAOS, Goings was transferred to DC supervision by CSOSA after release, with mandatory DC residency.
- CSOSA imposed seventeen special probation conditions, including a No Contact with minors provision affecting Goings’ relationship with his own children.
- Initial risk assessment led CSOSA to enforce several conditions pending assessment; Goings was told to move from his home and to have no contact with his children.
- Goings challenged six conditions as violations of the Fifth Amendment due process and sought a preliminary injunction; CSOSA modified some conditions during the suit.
- Court granted in part and denied in part the preliminary injunction, enjoining only the No Contact Provision as applied to Goings’ children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| No Contact Provision violates substantive due process. | Goings’ No Contact restricts core parental rights. | CSOSA acted to protect public safety; restriction tailored to risk. | Likely to succeed; injunction granted for No Contact with his children. |
| Procedural due process was violated in imposing/changing conditions. | Goings lacked notice/hearing before imposing/modifying conditions. | Meetings with CSOSA and counsel provided some process. | Likely to succeed on procedural claim; but injunction denied pending merits due to public interest. |
| Goings did not waive rights by ICAOS transfer or initialing conditions. | Transfer application does not equal waiver of constitutional rights. | Transfer implies acceptance of different conditions. | Goings did not knowingly, intelligently waive rights; claims proceed. |
| Challenged conditions mootness and standing issues. | Injunctive relief ongoing; conditions still threaten rights. | Some conditions modified; mootness may apply. | Not moot for substantive claim; mootness unresolved for procedural claim; claims proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (established four-factor test for preliminary injunctions and need for irreparable harm)
- Davis v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 571 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (sliding-scale approach in injunctive relief analysis)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor framework for procedural due process)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (parole/probation rights are conditional; due process constraints apply)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental rights are fundamental liberty interests)
- Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1972) (fundamental right to raise one’s children)