Sex offender in legal limbo over residency

6-27-15 Pennsylvania:

LEWISBURG — Can a man’s parole be revoked if he’s never been out from behind bars? That’s the question in the case of Samuel Grove, a Lewisburg man and convicted sex offender who, despite being in a parole phase remains in jail — 13 years and counting — because he has nowhere to go.

It also points to the problem of after-jail housing for sex offenders, whose freedom relies on restrictions for where they can live and whose histories make them unwelcome just about everywhere.

On Friday in Union County Court, Judge Michael Sholley continued the case for Grove, 43, of Lewisburg, who was sentenced in 2003 four to eight years in prison for sexual assaulting four young men in Union County in 2002.

Grove was in court Friday for a parole revocation hearing, having been transferred last month to Union County Prison after he maxed out his time in the state system. Aside of three days of release after Grove served his eight-year maximum, he hasn’t been free.

Sharkey v O'Neal

2-15-15 California:

Sharkey v O'Neal
Dennis Sharkey appeals from an order of the district court dismissing as time-barred his claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and various provisions of the Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district judge applied California's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims to all of Sharkey's claims. With respect to Sharkey's claim under Title II of the ADA, we hold that the district court did not apply the correct statute of limitations.

District courts must borrow the three-year limitations period applicable to claims under California Government Code § 11135, rather than the limitations period applicable to personal injury claims in California. Under this three-year limitations period, Sharkey's ADA claim is not time-barred. With respect to his other claims, Sharkey does not contest the applicable limitations periods, but we hold that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice without affording Sharkey leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

Sharkey is a 55–year–old man with disabilities that require him to use a wheelchair and two canes. In late 2006 and early 2007, Defendants Graham, Foster, O'Neal, and Sydney were employees at the Parole Division of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in Berkeley.

In 2006, Sharkey was on parole, living independently in an accessible apartment in Oakland. On December 28, 2006, Agent Foster informed Sharkey of new parole terms, including a housing restriction imposed under the California Sexual Predator and Control Act (Prop 83) that required Sharkey to move from his Oakland residence. Agent O'Neal, who Agent Foster had assigned to Sharkey's case, gave Sharkey only an hour to relocate and only 25 minutes to pack, notwithstanding his disability. Sharkey experienced a great deal of pain during this harried move, and, due to the time pressure, left behind important medical supplies and personal possessions. Agent O'Neal forbade Sharkey from ever returning to the apartment or from calling friends to retrieve his remaining belongings.

That night, Agent O'Neal drove Sharkey to the Harris Motel and assigned him to a room that lacked the safety features necessary to accommodate his disability, such as a wheelchair-accessible entrance, sufficient floor space to operate a wheelchair, and bathroom grab bars. When Sharkey complained to Agent Foster, no attempt was made to locate a suitable residence.

Assemblyman sues agency for information on placing sex offenders in suburban Buffalo

12-7-2014 New York:

ALBANY, New York — The state's placement of six convicted sex offenders at adjoining group homes for the disabled in suburban Buffalo a year ago upset neighbors to the point that many marched in protest.

Now their assemblyman is suing his own government for an explanation why the men are living in a residential neighborhood near a park frequented by children.

Assemblyman Michael Kearns said he's been unable to get sufficient answers personally or formally under New York's Freedom of Information Law, leading to the lawsuit.

"We have a right to know why the placements are happening," Kearns said. "Why did you move them to a neighborhood near a park and what are the policy decisions to support that?"

The Office for People with Developmental Disabilities told Kearns the men were transferred last December from a Rochester institution that was closing as part of the statewide plan to move people from institutions to community-based programs.

Some Curbs on Sex Offenders Called Ineffective, Inhumane

11-22-2006 Georgia:

As convicted sex offenders go, they seem to pose little danger.

One is 100 years old. Another can barely walk and is in the late stages of Alzheimer's disease. Another is dying of heart disease in a nursing home.

Yet under a new Georgia law, thousands of registered sex offenders, even the old and feeble, could be pushed from their homes and hospices.

"He doesn't really know anything about it," said Ruby Anderson, 77, whose husband was convicted of having sex with a minor in 1997 and, at 81, no longer recognizes members of his family because of Alzheimer's disease. "The trouble is, I just don't know where we can go."

As states around the country have sought in recent years to control the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders, Georgia's law stands out as one of the toughest, a testament to the daunting public fears regarding children's safety.

NY- Hospitals forced into holding pattern

7-2-2008 New York:

Keith Shortsleeves knew he was going to have to stay in Glens Falls Hospital for at least a few weeks when he checked in on Jan. 20 for diabetes-related problems.

Circulation problems required partial amputation of his left leg.

But within a few weeks, Shortsleeves had recovered to the point he was ready to be discharged.

"I thought I'd just be going home," he said.

Nearly five months later, Shortsleeves is still in the hospital, despite the fact he is no longer in need of treatment there.

The hospital's staff won't let him go because he doesn't have a home that meets his needs for post-hospital care, he said during an interview in his room last week.

He is a Level 3 sex offender who can't go back to his former apartment in Fort Edward because of handicapped accessibility issues, but can't find an accessible apartment anywhere else because of laws that dictate where sex offenders can live.