Case: American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto

2:08-cv-00822 | U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada

Filed Date: June 24, 2008

Closed Date: 2015

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On June 24, 2008, several sex offender plaintiffs brought an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against several state defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, alleged violation of several constitutional protections. Speficially plaintiffs' argued that new sex offender laws could not be applied retroactively, and that they resulted in excessive punishments to plaintiffs, thus seeking injunctive relief …

On June 24, 2008, several sex offender plaintiffs brought an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against several state defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, alleged violation of several constitutional protections. Speficially plaintiffs' argued that new sex offender laws could not be applied retroactively, and that they resulted in excessive punishments to plaintiffs, thus seeking injunctive relief and declaratory judgment against the new state laws.

On June 30, 2008, the District Court (Hon. James C. Mahan) denied a temporary restraining order but granted a preliminary injunction, postponing the enforcement of the new sex offender laws against plaintiffs. After obtaining the preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include new parties and a jury demand against all defendants, and to remove Washoe County and all law enforcement defendants. The Court also denied third parties' motions to intervene and a motion to file an amicus curiae brief, holding that no new legal issues were being presented and that affected persons were being adequately represented.

On October 7, 2008, the Court held that because the retroactive application of the laws meant imposing a new punishment for an old crime, it violated the Ex Post Facto, Double Jeopardy, and Contracts clauses, and that because there was no procedural safeguard for the plaintiffs, it also violated the Due Process clause. Thus, the Court granted plaintiffs' revised order requesting permanent injunction against enforcing Nevada's new sex offender laws. In January of 2009, the Court also granted plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees in the amount of $145,823.50. The defendants appealed the District Court's decision, and requested that the court stay the order of attorney fees pending appeal, though the Court denied the motion to stay.

On February 10, 2012, the Court of Appeals reversed the injunction against retroactive application of Nevada's New Sex Offender laws regarding recategorization of sex offenders, citing to previous 9th Circuit decisions holding that retroactive application of similar laws was constitutional. The Court of Appeals also dismissed as moot the defendants' appeal regarding the district court's injunction against retroactive application of new laws restricting movement and residency of sex offenders, basing their decision on the defendants' admission that such laws were not meant to be interpreted as retroactively applicable; the Court of Appeals ordered the parties to create consent decree to be signed by the District Court. The injunction against the movement and residency laws was to remain in force until such a decree was signed.

The case remained open, with the parties resolving the matter and the Court conducting status checks, and handling a new issue regarding the scope of the injunction on the movement and residency laws. Further, the Court of Appeals held that the outcome regarding movement and residence laws was considered a ruling for the plaintiffs, and thus affirmed the District Court's grant of attorney fees to the plaintiffs; however, the amount to be paid by defendants was later settled by the parties, though the amount was not indicated in the record.

No consent decree appears to have been filed, though it appears the parties resolved the matter. On June 10, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal, which the court granted two days later. There is little information available about the conclusion of the case.

The case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Maurice Youkanna (6/22/2014)

Virginia Weeks (1/20/2018)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4316457/parties/aclu-of-nevada-v-masto/


Judge(s)

Bea, Carlos T. (California)

Leen, Peggy A. (Nevada)

Mahan, James C. (Nevada)

Stafford, William Henry Jr. (Florida)

Trott, Stephen S. (Idaho)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Langford, Robert (Nevada)

Lichtenstein, Allen (Nevada)

McLetchie, Maggie (Nevada)

Rowland, Lee B. (Nevada)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Barker, Stephanie A (Nevada)

Judge(s)

Bea, Carlos T. (California)

Leen, Peggy A. (Nevada)

Mahan, James C. (Nevada)

Stafford, William Henry Jr. (Florida)

Trott, Stephen S. (Idaho)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Langford, Robert (Nevada)

Lichtenstein, Allen (Nevada)

McLetchie, Maggie (Nevada)

Rowland, Lee B. (Nevada)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Barker, Stephanie A (Nevada)

Buchanan, Kimberly (Nevada)

Campbell, Jack D. (Nevada)

Creekman, David C (Nevada)

Crosby, Nicholas (Nevada)

Palal, Binu (Nevada)

Other Attorney(s)

Jackson, Terrence M (Nevada)

Peters, Michael L (Nevada)

Roske, Randall J (Nevada)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:08-cv-00822

0:08-17471

0:09-16008

Docket [PACER]

July 7, 2015

July 7, 2015

Docket
2

2:08-cv-00822

42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [Jury Trial Demanded]

June 24, 2008

June 24, 2008

Complaint
29

2:08-cv-00822

42 U.S.C. § 1983 Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [Jury Trial Demanded]

July 7, 2008

July 7, 2008

Complaint
61

2:08-cv-00822

Stipulation to Dismiss Certain Named Defendants (Gammick and Haley)

July 28, 2008

July 28, 2008

Order/Opinion
58

2:08-cv-00822

Stipulation to Dismiss Certain Named Defendants

July 28, 2008

July 28, 2008

Order/Opinion
66

2:08-cv-00822

Order [Granting Motion for Temporary Protective Order and Motion to Proceed under Pseudonym]

2008 WL 3875263

Aug. 18, 2008

Aug. 18, 2008

Order/Opinion
69

2:08-cv-00822

Order [Denying Motion to Intervene]

Sept. 5, 2008

Sept. 5, 2008

Order/Opinion
77

2:08-cv-00822

Plaintiffs' Revised Order Granting Permanent Injunction

719 F.Supp.2d 258

Oct. 7, 2008

Oct. 7, 2008

Order/Opinion
92

2:08-cv-00822

American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto - Order [Granting Motion for Attorney's Fees]

Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

Order/Opinion
102

2:08-cv-00822

American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto - Order [Denying Motion to Stay]

April 8, 2009

April 8, 2009

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4316457/aclu-of-nevada-v-masto/

Last updated Aug. 2, 2022, 3:09 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

Complaint

June 24, 2008

June 24, 2008

PACER
2

Exhibit

June 24, 2008

June 24, 2008

RECAP
3

Notice re AO 85 Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate

June 25, 2008

June 25, 2008

PACER
4

Certificate of Interested Parties

June 25, 2008

June 25, 2008

PACER
5

Declaration

June 25, 2008

June 25, 2008

PACER
6

Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages

2 Proposed Order with Stipulation to Increase Pages

View on PACER

June 25, 2008

June 25, 2008

PACER
7

Motion for TRO

2 Supplement Part 2/3

View on PACER

3 Supplement Part 3/3

View on PACER

June 25, 2008

June 25, 2008

PACER
8

Exhibit

June 25, 2008

June 25, 2008

PACER
9

Motion for Protective Order

June 25, 2008

June 25, 2008

PACER
10

Notice of Hearing on Motion

June 25, 2008

June 25, 2008

PACER
11

Proposed Summons to be issued

June 25, 2008

June 25, 2008

PACER
12

Summons Issued

2 Corrected Image

View on PACER

June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

PACER
13

Summons Issued

June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

PACER
14

Summons Issued

June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

PACER
15

Summons Issued

June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

PACER
16

Summons Issued

June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

PACER
17

Summons Issued

June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

PACER
18

Summons Issued

June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

PACER
19

Summons Issued

June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

PACER
20

Summons Issued

June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

PACER
21

Summons Issued

June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

PACER
22

Supplement

June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

PACER
23

Minute Order Setting Hearing on Motion

June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

PACER
24

Declaration

2 Declaration of Doe plaintiffs A-G

View on PACER

June 27, 2008

June 27, 2008

PACER
25

Addendum

June 27, 2008

June 27, 2008

PACER
26

Certificate of Service

June 27, 2008

June 27, 2008

PACER
27

Order on Motion for TRO

June 30, 2008

June 30, 2008

PACER
28

Transcript

July 7, 2008

July 7, 2008

PACER
29

Amended Complaint

July 7, 2008

July 7, 2008

PACER
30

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

2 Declaration Declaration of Margaret McLetchie ISO Request for Modification to Sc

View on PACER

July 8, 2008

July 8, 2008

PACER
31

Motion to Expedite

July 8, 2008

July 8, 2008

PACER
32

Declaration

July 8, 2008

July 8, 2008

PACER
33

Notice of Hearing on Motion

July 9, 2008

July 9, 2008

PACER
34

Certificate of Service

July 9, 2008

July 9, 2008

PACER
35

Notice of Appearance

July 9, 2008

July 9, 2008

PACER
36

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

2 Exhibit A, pages 1-12

View on PACER

3 Exhibit A, pages 13-23

View on PACER

July 10, 2008

July 10, 2008

PACER
37

Motion to Expedite

July 10, 2008

July 10, 2008

PACER
38

Certificate of Service

July 10, 2008

July 10, 2008

PACER
39

Response to Motion

July 10, 2008

July 10, 2008

PACER
40

Response to Motion

July 11, 2008

July 11, 2008

PACER
41

Joinder

July 11, 2008

July 11, 2008

PACER
42

Response to Motion

July 14, 2008

July 14, 2008

PACER
43

Joinder

July 14, 2008

July 14, 2008

PACER
44

Response to Motion

July 14, 2008

July 14, 2008

PACER
45

Reply to Response to Motion

July 16, 2008

July 16, 2008

PACER
46

Order on Motion

July 16, 2008

July 16, 2008

PACER
47

Notice of Appearance

July 16, 2008

July 16, 2008

PACER
48

Notice of Change of Attorney

July 18, 2008

July 18, 2008

PACER
49

Summons Returned Executed

July 21, 2008

July 21, 2008

PACER
50

Answer to Amended Complaint

July 22, 2008

July 22, 2008

PACER
51

Stipulation of Dismissal

July 24, 2008

July 24, 2008

PACER
52

Reply to Response to Motion

July 24, 2008

July 24, 2008

PACER
53

Summons Returned Executed

July 24, 2008

July 24, 2008

PACER
54

Stipulation of Dismissal

July 24, 2008

July 24, 2008

PACER
55

Reply to Response to Motion

July 24, 2008

July 24, 2008

PACER
56

Stipulation of Dismissal

July 25, 2008

July 25, 2008

PACER
57

Transcript

July 28, 2008

July 28, 2008

PACER
58

Order on Stipulation

July 28, 2008

July 28, 2008

PACER
59

Response - Other

2 Response to TRO - Part 2

View on PACER

3 Response to TRO - Part 3

View on PACER

4 Response to TRO - Part 4

View on PACER

5 Response to TRO - Part 5

View on PACER

July 28, 2008

July 28, 2008

PACER
61

Order on Stipulation

July 28, 2008

July 28, 2008

PACER
60

Exhibit

2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 - Part 2

View on PACER

3 Exhibit Exhibit 1 - Part 3

View on PACER

4 Exhibit Exhibit 1 - Part 4

View on PACER

5 Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Part 1

View on PACER

6 Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Part 2

View on PACER

7 Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Part 3

View on PACER

8 Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Part 4

View on PACER

9 Errata Exhibit 3

View on PACER

July 29, 2008

July 29, 2008

PACER
62

Stipulation

July 31, 2008

July 31, 2008

PACER
63

Order on Motion for Protective Order

Aug. 12, 2008

Aug. 12, 2008

PACER
64

Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages

Aug. 18, 2008

Aug. 18, 2008

PACER
65

Reply to Response to Motion

2 Plaintiffs' Reply part. 2

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 2

View on PACER

5 Exhibit 3

View on PACER

Aug. 18, 2008

Aug. 18, 2008

PACER
66

ORDER: The 9 MOTION for Protective Order is Granted part and Denied in part as follows: The Doe Plaintiffs are permitted to proceed under pseudonym for purposes of the public record while the District Judge adjudicates the merits of the Permanent Injunction and unless otherwise ordered by this Court. Counsel for the Doe Plaintiffs shall disclose the names and personal identifiers of the Doe Plaintiffs to counsel for the Defendants. A temporary protective order is entered precluding the Defend ants from disclosing the names and personal identifiers of the Doe Plaintiffs and from using this information for any purpose not related to this litigation. Counsel for the Defendants may request criminal records and related information necessary to investigate the Doe Plaintiffs' standing to bring this action from the Department of Parole and Probation and/or any other governmental source but shall not disclose the purpose for which the information is sought. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 08/18/08. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SRK)

Aug. 18, 2008

Aug. 18, 2008

RECAP
67

Motion to Intervene

2 Part 2 of Motion

View on PACER

3 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

Aug. 20, 2008

Aug. 20, 2008

PACER
68

Notice of Hearing

Sept. 5, 2008

Sept. 5, 2008

PACER
69

Order on Motion to Intervene

Sept. 5, 2008

Sept. 5, 2008

PACER
70

Order on Motion

Sept. 10, 2008

Sept. 10, 2008

PACER
71

Stipulation

Sept. 24, 2008

Sept. 24, 2008

PACER
72

Order on Stipulation

Sept. 25, 2008

Sept. 25, 2008

PACER
73

Proposed Order Submission

Oct. 1, 2008

Oct. 1, 2008

PACER
74

Objection to Document

Oct. 2, 2008

Oct. 2, 2008

PACER
75

Response - Other

Oct. 3, 2008

Oct. 3, 2008

PACER
76

Proposed Order Submission

Oct. 7, 2008

Oct. 7, 2008

PACER
77

Permanent Injunction

Oct. 7, 2008

Oct. 7, 2008

PACER
78

Motion to Extend Time/Shorten Time regarding Discovery or Nondispositive matter

2 Declaration Declaration in Support of Motion To Extend Time

View on PACER

Oct. 17, 2008

Oct. 17, 2008

PACER
79

Proposed Order Submission

Oct. 17, 2008

Oct. 17, 2008

PACER
80

Order on Motion to Extend Time/Shorten Time regarding Discovery or Nondispositive matter

Oct. 22, 2008

Oct. 22, 2008

PACER
81

Mail Returned

Oct. 27, 2008

Oct. 27, 2008

PACER
82

Motion for Attorney Fees

2 Declaration McLetchie Declaration ISO Motion for Attorney's Fees

View on PACER

3 Exhibit Exs 1 and 2 to McLetchie Declaration ISO Motion for Attorney's Fees

View on PACER

4 Declaration Declaration of Franny Forsman

View on PACER

5 Declaration Cal Potter Declaration

View on PACER

Oct. 28, 2008

Oct. 28, 2008

PACER
83

Notice of Appeal

Oct. 29, 2008

Oct. 29, 2008

PACER
84

Statement

Oct. 29, 2008

Oct. 29, 2008

PACER
85

Transmittal of Notice of Appeal

2 Transcript Designation and Order Form

View on PACER

Nov. 3, 2008

Nov. 3, 2008

PACER
86

Transcript

Nov. 3, 2008

Nov. 3, 2008

PACER
91

Transmittal Return of Notice of Appeal

Nov. 10, 2008

Nov. 10, 2008

PACER
87

Response to Motion

Nov. 17, 2008

Nov. 17, 2008

PACER
88

Transcript Designation

2 Transcript - Part 1

View on PACER

3 Transcript - Part 2

View on PACER

Dec. 1, 2008

Dec. 1, 2008

PACER
89

Reply to Response to Motion

2 Declaration Of Gregory Kamer

View on PACER

Dec. 1, 2008

Dec. 1, 2008

PACER
90

Certificate of Record

Dec. 2, 2008

Dec. 2, 2008

PACER
92

Order on Motion for Attorney Fees

Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

PACER
93

Judgment on Attorney Fees

Jan. 13, 2009

Jan. 13, 2009

PACER
94

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Jan. 23, 2009

Jan. 23, 2009

PACER
95

Stipulation

Jan. 28, 2009

Jan. 28, 2009

PACER
96

Order on Stipulation

Jan. 30, 2009

Jan. 30, 2009

PACER
97

Response to Motion

2 Exhibits 1 and 2

View on PACER

Feb. 17, 2009

Feb. 17, 2009

PACER
98

Motion to Extend Time/Shorten Time regarding Discovery or Nondispositive matter

March 3, 2009

March 3, 2009

PACER
99

Proposed Order Submission

March 3, 2009

March 3, 2009

PACER
100

Order on Motion to Extend Time/Shorten Time regarding Discovery or Nondispositive matter

March 5, 2009

March 5, 2009

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Nevada

Case Type(s):

Criminal Justice (Other)

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 24, 2008

Closing Date: 2015

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs are sex offenders seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against new state sex offender laws.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

State of Nevada, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Due Process

Equal Protection

Ex Post Facto

Free Exercise Clause

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Private Settlement Agreement

Voluntary Dismissal

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

General:

Classification / placement

Record-keeping

Records Disclosure