Texas state prisoner Willie Williams, proceeding pro se, filed this Â§ 1983 action against various state officials having authority over the parole system, seeking damages and injunctive relief related to defendants imposition, without procedural due process, as a condition of parole that he register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.001, et seq. (Vernon Supp. 2006), and receive sex-offender therapy, even though he was never convicted of a sex offense. The district court concluded that defendants violated Williamss right to due process when it imposed these conditions on his parole in 1998, but it denied damages after concluding that qualified immunity shielded defendants because Williamss right was not clearly established law at that time. It also denied as moot Williamss request for an injunction, noting that Williams was back in prison for an unrelated parole violation and defendants had ceased requiring parolees not convicted of sex offenses to register under SORA. The district court did, however, issue a declaratory judgment stating that some process was required before requiring registration of parolees not convicted of a sex offense. After this decision, we decided Coleman v. Dretke ("Coleman I"), 395 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2004) and Coleman v. Dretke ("Coleman II"), 409 F.3d 665 (5th Cir. 2005) (on denial of petition for rehearing en banc), agreeing that people like Williams were entitled to some process before being required to register or pursue therapy. Williams appeals.