Bollinger

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff Edward Bollinger (“Bollinger”) brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , claiming that defendants violated his con *771 stitutional rights by releasing him on parole, over his objections, for the purpose of imposing post-prison supervision. The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment because several individual defendants were not involved in the parole decision, and the remaining defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Bollinger appeals, contending that the district court erred in its decision on qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them in detail. We reverse.

In Bollinger v. Or. State Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 86 Fed. Appx. 259 (9th Cir.2003) (“Bollinger /”), we reversed the district court’s dismissal on qualified immunity grounds, holding, inter alia, that, “[tjaking the factual allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the non-movant, we cannot conclude that it would not be clear to a reasonable official that retroactively applying a statute to avert Bollinger’s…