Case: Doe v. Pataki

1:96-cv-01657 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: March 6, 1996

Closed Date: Dec. 3, 2007

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In March 1996, the Plaintiffs--convicted sex offenders who were incarcerated, on parole, or on probation when New York's original Sex Offenders Registration Act ("SORA") took effect on January 21, 1996--filed a class action in the District Court, alleging that the Act violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution and deprived the Plaintiffs of their due process and equal protection rights. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Judge (Judge Denny Chin) concluded that the SO…

In March 1996, the Plaintiffs--convicted sex offenders who were incarcerated, on parole, or on probation when New York's original Sex Offenders Registration Act ("SORA") took effect on January 21, 1996--filed a class action in the District Court, alleging that the Act violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution and deprived the Plaintiffs of their due process and equal protection rights. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Judge (Judge Denny Chin) concluded that the SORA's community notification provisions violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and enjoined enforcement of these provisions against the Plaintiffs. Doe v. Pataki, 940 F. Supp. 603 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed the District Judge’s (Judge Chin) ruling that the community notification procedures violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and remanded the case for consideration of the Plaintiffs' other claims. Doe v. Pataki, 120 F.3d 1263, 1285 (2d Cir. 1997). On remand, the Plaintiffs again moved to enjoin enforcement of the SORA, this time on procedural due process grounds. The District Judge (Judge Chin) concluded that the registration and community notification provisions of the SORA implicated protected liberty interests, and that the procedures by which risk levels were assigned did not provide adequate due process for protecting these interests. The District Judge (Judge Chin) entered an injunction requiring that an offender (1) be given a court hearing; (2) receive advance notice of the hearing, its purpose, and the recommended risk level classification; (3) be given the right to retain counsel or the right to have counsel appointed if he cannot afford to retain counsel himself; (4) be given pre-hearing discovery of the evidence on which the risk level recommendation is based; and (5) be given the right to appeal. Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456, 471-2 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). Moreover, the Judge concluded, the State must bear the burden of proof and must prove the facts supporting the risk level recommendation by clear and convincing evidence. The court enjoined the State from classifying the Plaintiffs at a risk level other than level one until it reclassified them in accordance with the procedures required by the ruling.

After the District Judge’s (Judge Chin) procedural due process ruling, the parties began settlement discussions. On November 22, 2000, having received no report of a final settlement, the District Judge (Judge Chin) issued an order dismissing the case without prejudice to reinstatement within sixty days if the parties were unable to reach a final settlement agreement. The parties neither reached agreement within sixty days nor requested an extension of time. Nonetheless, as was represented at the first of two oral arguments, the parties continued to operate as if the injunction was in effect notwithstanding the termination of the case. The parties completed settlement negotiations in June 2004, at which time they jointly moved for reinstatement of the case and approval of a Stipulation of Settlement ("the Stipulation"). The District Judge (Judge Chin) reinstated the action and "so ordered" the Stipulation on June 4, 2004. The District Court (Judge Chin) noted later that the Stipulation was the equivalent of a consent decree, Doe v. Pataki, 427 F. Supp. 2d 398, 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), a determination the State did not appeal.

The Stipulation, the stated purpose of which was to "settl[e] the disputes between [the parties] and avoid[] further litigation," specified detailed procedures for conducting redetermination hearings for level two and level three Plaintiffs and for notifying them of their right to such hearings. Paragraph fifteen of the Stipulation provides, among other things, that a Plaintiff whose risk level is determined to be at level two "will be considered to be a level two offender as of March 11, 2002" and that, "therefore, the duration of the registration requirement will be 10 years from the date of his or her original registration." Attached to the Stipulation were a general notice of settlement to be sent to the Plaintiffs and specific notices to be sent to level two and level three Plaintiffs, which explained level two and level three Plaintiffs' right to redetermination hearings, the procedures by which redetermination hearings would take place, and the duration-of registration and scope-of-notification requirements for those classified under level one, two, or three.

In January 2006, the Sex Offenders Registration Act was amended, to increase the duration of the registration requirement for level one and level two offenders. Plaintiffs filed a motion in the District Court for an order enforcing the Stipulation and enjoining the State from requiring level one or level two Plaintiffs to register beyond ten years. The Plaintiffs contended that paragraph fifteen of the Stipulation and the attached notices bound the State to a ten-year registration requirement for level one and level two Plaintiffs and that the application of the 2006 amendment to these Plaintiffs therefore breached the Stipulation. In response, the State argued that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the Stipulation, and that, in any event, the Stipulation could not be construed to impose a ten-year limit on registration because it was concerned with the procedures for assessing risk levels, not the substantive consequences of such assessments.

The District Judge (Judge Chin), after first rejecting the State's jurisdictional argument, concluded that the parties had bargained for a ten-year registration period and that application of the January 2006 legislative amendment to level one and level two Plaintiffs therefore breached the parties' agreement. The District Judge (Judge Chin) enjoined enforcement of the January 2006 amendment to level one and level two offenders covered by the Stipulation, but stayed his order pending appeal. Doe v. Pataki, 427 F. Supp.2d 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

The legislature amended the Act again in June 2006, but in an order entered July 18, 2006, the District Judge (Judge Chin) further enjoined the State from applying that and any subsequent amendments to level one and level two Plaintiffs. Doe v. Pataki, 439 F. Supp. 2d 324 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). The District Judge (Judge Chin) subsequently denied the State's motion for clarification of the July 2006 injunction and later denied the State's motion for a stay of that injunction. In denying the State's stay motion, the District Judge (Judge Chin) reasoned that the Stipulation, by referring to the attached notices specifying "the community notification provisions applicable to each risk level," bound the State to the community notification provisions in effect in 2004 when the Stipulation was approved. He concluded, "The New [June 2006] [a]mendment . . . would increase the extent of public notification for both level 1 and level 2 class members beyond what the parties bargained for--and the Court 'so ordered'--in the Stipulation." The State timely appealed both injunctions; the appeals were consolidated.

The Second Circuit reversed, vacating the two injunctions. The Court (Jon Newman, J.) held that while the stipulation was negotiated to avoid litigation over the procedures by which plaintiffs-convicted sex offenders' risk levels would be redetermined, and plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of those bargained-for procedures; plaintiffs did not bargain to have the stipulation assure them the continued scope of state statutes existing at the time of the stipulation; and therefore the stipulation could not be interpreted to preclude the application of subsequent legislative changes on matters distinct from the subject matter of the litigation. Doe v. Pataki, 481 F.3d 69, 2007 WL 705031 (C.A.2 (N.Y.)).

On October 24, 2007, the District Court (Judge Chin) denied plaintiffs’ application for modification of the consent decree. On December 3, 2007, the case was closed administratively pursuant to Memorandum from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts dated June 15th, 1973.

Summary Authors

Margo Schlanger (4/20/2007)

Frances Hollander (2/21/2016)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4938666/parties/john-doe-v-pataki/


Judge(s)

Cabranes, José Alberto (Connecticut)

Chin, Denny (New York)

Newman, Jon Ormond (New York)

Pooler, Rosemary S. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Baum, Robert M. (New York)

Dunn, Christopher (New York)

Hendricks, Susan L. (New York)

Johnson, Laura R. (New York)

Lieberman, Donna (New York)

Maxian, Michelle (New York)

Judge(s)

Cabranes, José Alberto (Connecticut)

Chin, Denny (New York)

Newman, Jon Ormond (New York)

Pooler, Rosemary S. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Baum, Robert M. (New York)

Dunn, Christopher (New York)

Hendricks, Susan L. (New York)

Johnson, Laura R. (New York)

Lieberman, Donna (New York)

Maxian, Michelle (New York)

O'Brien, Thomas (New York)

Siegel, Norman H. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Belohlavek, Michael S. (New York)

Dearing, Richard (New York)

Hughes, Thomas D. (New York)

Morrison, Christine E. (New York)

Oser, Andrea (New York)

Vacco, Dennis C. (New York)

Willenken, Louis H. (New York)

Other Attorney(s)

Alter, Daniel S. (New York)

Benjamin, Barry (New York)

Feldman, Daniel L. (New York)

Saffran, Dennis J. (New York)

Schor, Gideon A. (New York)

Spitzer, Eliot (New York)

Stavis, Roger L. (New York)

White, Mary Jo (New York)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:96-cv-01657

Docket (PACER)

Feb. 5, 2008

Feb. 5, 2008

Docket
13

1:96-cv-01657

Opinion and Order

919 F.Supp. 691

March 21, 1996

March 21, 1996

Order/Opinion
35

1:96-cv-01657

Opinion

940 F.Supp. 603

Sept. 24, 1996

Sept. 24, 1996

Order/Opinion

96-06249

96-06269

97-01237

97-01238

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

120 F.3d 1263

Aug. 22, 1997

Aug. 22, 1997

Order/Opinion

97-07023

Certiorari Denied

Supreme Court of the United States

522 U.S. 1122, 118 S.Ct. 1066

Feb. 23, 1998

Feb. 23, 1998

Order/Opinion
44

1:96-cv-01657

Order (TRO)

1998 WL 476173

March 18, 1998

March 18, 1998

Order/Opinion
58

1:96-cv-01657

Opinion

3 F.Supp.2d 456

May 7, 1998

May 7, 1998

Order/Opinion
75

1:96-cv-01657

Opinion

427 F.Supp.2d 398

April 12, 2006

April 12, 2006

Order/Opinion
80

1:96-cv-01657

Order

439 F.Supp.2d 324

July 18, 2006

July 18, 2006

Order/Opinion

06-02126

06-03709

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

481 F.3d 69

March 7, 2007

March 7, 2007

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4938666/john-doe-v-pataki/

Last updated July 21, 2022, 3:18 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

Order endorsed on declaration and support of request to proceed in forma pauperis, granted ; ( signed by Judge Leonard B. Sand ) (sc) (Entered: 03/07/1996)

March 6, 1996

March 6, 1996

PACER
2

COMPLAINT filed; Summons issued and Notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c); FILING FEE $ IFP RECEIPT # IFP (sc) (Entered: 03/07/1996)

March 6, 1996

March 6, 1996

PACER

It is suggested that the case be classified as exped.. Magistrate Judge Eaton is so Designated. (sc)

March 6, 1996

March 6, 1996

PACER
3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by John Doe -, Richard Roe, Samuel Poe Show Cause Hearing set for 3:00 3/18/96 for temporary restraining order, for preliminary injunction and class action Certification Defendants shall serve (by hand) and file opposition papers by 03/13/96 at 5pm and plaintiffs shall serve (by hand) and file reply papers, if any, by 03/15/96 at 5pm. signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies mailed. (djc) (Entered: 03/08/1996)

March 7, 1996

March 7, 1996

PACER
4

Affidavit of service of Order to Show Cause, annexed affdvts., pltffs' Memorandum of Law and pltffs' complt. by personal svc. upon Ellen B. Villalobos, an agent duly authorized to accept svc. on behalf of the U.S. Attny's Office, S.D.N.Y at 100 Church St., NY, NY 10007. and also upon the Dept. of Treasury, U.S. Customs Svc., Regional Counsel's office at 6 World Trade Ctr., NY, Ny at 10:30 a.m. on 3/5/96 (ls) (Entered: 03/08/1996)

March 7, 1996

March 7, 1996

PACER
5

MEMORANDUM by John Doe -, Richard Roe, Samuel Poe in support of [3-1] motion for temporary restraining order, [3-2] motion for preliminary injunction, [3-3] motion class action Certification (ls) (Entered: 03/08/1996)

March 7, 1996

March 7, 1996

PACER
6

MEMORANDUM OF LAW by George E. Pataki, Paul Schectman, N.Y.S. Dept. Crim., Brion Travis, NYS Div. of Parole, George Sanchez, Div. of Probat., Elizabeth M. Devane, NYS Bd. of Ex. Sex opposition to [3-2] motion for preliminary injunction, and [3-3] motion for class action certification. (ae) (Entered: 03/14/1996)

March 13, 1996

March 13, 1996

PACER
7

AFFIRMATION of Paul Shechtman by George E. Pataki in opposition to Re: [3-2] motion for preliminary injunction, [3-3] motion for class action certification. (ae) (Entered: 03/14/1996)

March 13, 1996

March 13, 1996

PACER
11

NOTICE OF MOTION by Daniel L. Feldman, Member of the Assembly of the State of New York for preliminary injunction against implementation of New York's Sex Offender Registration Act., Return date not indicated. (ae) (Entered: 03/18/1996)

March 14, 1996

March 14, 1996

PACER
8

ORDER, It does not appear that an evidentiary hearing is required with respect to pltffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, on 3/18/96, the parties will simply present oral argument. ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies faxed Chambers. (lam) (Entered: 03/18/1996)

March 15, 1996

March 15, 1996

PACER
9

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW by John Doe -, Richard Roe, Samuel Poe in support of re: [3-2] motion for preliminary injunction. (ae) (Entered: 03/18/1996)

March 15, 1996

March 15, 1996

PACER
10

Reply Affirmation of Susan L. Hendricks by John Doe -, Richard Roe, Samuel Poe in support of [3-2] motion for preliminary injunction (ae) (Entered: 03/18/1996)

March 15, 1996

March 15, 1996

PACER
12

MEMORANDUM OF LAW of The U.S.A. as Amicus Curiae in opposition to [3-2] motion for preliminary injunction (ae) (Entered: 03/18/1996)

March 15, 1996

March 15, 1996

PACER
13

OPINION and ORDER # 76317 granting [11-1] motion for preliminary injunction against implementation of New York's Sex Offender Registration Act. ( Signed by Judge Denny ); Copies mailed. (djc) (Entered: 03/25/1996)

March 21, 1996

March 21, 1996

PACER
14

Filed Memo_Endorsement on letter dated 3/28/96, answer due for 4/10/96 for NYS Bd. of Ex. Sex, for Elizabeth M. Devane, for NYS Div. of Probat., for George Sanchez, for NYS Div. of Parole, for Brion Travis, for N.Y.S. Dept. Crim., for Paul Schectman, for George E. Pataki ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ) (cd) (Entered: 04/04/1996)

April 3, 1996

April 3, 1996

PACER
15

ANSWER to Complaint by George E. Pataki, Paul Schectman, N.Y.S. Dept. Crim., Brion Travis, NYS Div. of Parole, George Sanchez, NYS Div. of Probat., Elizabeth M. Devane, NYS Bd. of Ex. Sex (Attorney Christine E. Morrison), RCBDNDB on 4/10/96 at 5:52pm) by attorney Christine E. Morrison for defendant NYS Bd. of Ex. Sex (pl) (Entered: 04/12/1996)

April 10, 1996

April 10, 1996

PACER

Pre-trial conference held (cd)

April 30, 1996

April 30, 1996

PACER
16

ORDER, set discovery due for 6/30/96, set Defendants' summary judgment motion filing deadline for 6/30/96, set Plaintiffs' opposition to motion filing deadline for set for 7/30/96, Defendants' Reply to Response and opposition to Cross-Motion by 8/13/96, set Any amici curiae who have been granted leave to appear in support of the constitutionality of the N.Y. State Sec offender Registration Act shall submit any amicus briefs by 8/13/96......... ..So Ordered....( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies mailed (pl) (Entered: 05/02/1996)

May 1, 1996

May 1, 1996

PACER
17

Transcript of record of proceedings filed for dates of 3/18/96 before Judge Chin. (rag) (Entered: 05/09/1996)

May 9, 1996

May 9, 1996

PACER
18

Transcript of record of proceedings filed for dates of 3/7/96 (cd) (Entered: 05/09/1996)

May 9, 1996

May 9, 1996

PACER
19

MEMORANDUM by Amici Curiae, the American Aliance for Rights and Responsibilities IN SUPPORT OF defts' motion for summary jdgmt. dismissing the action (ls) (Entered: 07/08/1996)

July 3, 1996

July 3, 1996

PACER
20

AFFIDAVIT of Linda J. Valenti in connection to Re: [20-1] motion for summary judgment. (kw) (Entered: 07/09/1996)

July 5, 1996

July 5, 1996

PACER
21

MEMORANDUM by defendants in support of [20-1] motion for summary judgment. (kw) (Entered: 07/09/1996)

July 5, 1996

July 5, 1996

PACER
22

Affidavit of service of Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Request for Document Production as to Robert M. Baum, Attorney in Charge, Criminal Defense Division, The Legal Aid Society, 15 Park Row, 10th Floor, NYC 10038 by Personal Service on 7/19/96 (kk) (Entered: 07/24/1996)

July 23, 1996

July 23, 1996

PACER
23

SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault (sp) (Entered: 08/02/1996)

Aug. 2, 1996

Aug. 2, 1996

PACER
24

NOTICE OF MOTION by John Doe -, Richard Roe, Samuel Poe for summary judgment, Return date 8/27/96; attached are papers in support (cd) (Entered: 08/02/1996)

Aug. 2, 1996

Aug. 2, 1996

PACER
25

MEMORANDUM by John Doe -, Richard Roe, Samuel Poe in support of [24-1] motion for summary judgment (cd) (Entered: 08/02/1996)

Aug. 2, 1996

Aug. 2, 1996

PACER
26

ORDER, All materials supplied to plaintiffs' counsel in this matter that are subject to the seal order issued in W.P. v. Verniero, Civ. #96-97 (D.N.J) (Hon. John W. Bissell), shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed except as follows....(see order).... ...So Ordered...( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies mailed (pl) (Entered: 08/06/1996)

Aug. 5, 1996

Aug. 5, 1996

PACER
27

ORDER, all materials supplied to defendants' counsel in this matter that are subject to the sealing order issued in W.P. v. Verniero, Civ. no. 96-97 (D.N.J) (Hon. John W. Bissell), shall be confidential and shall not be discolsed except as follows:....(1) the relevant documents shall not be disseminated to any person other than defendants' counsel or their employees or other personnel who are working on this matter and then only for the purposes of work on this matter; (2) any protected document that is filed with this court in conjunction with this matter shall be filed under seal; and (3) any protected document that is filed with this court under seal shall be provided to plaintiffs' counsel, who shall not disseminate them to any person for any reason except to their employees or other personnel who are working on this matter and then only for the purposes of work on this matter. SO ORDERED. ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies mailed (djc) (Entered: 08/08/1996)

Aug. 7, 1996

Aug. 7, 1996

PACER
28

MEMORANDUM The United States of America as AMICUS CURIAE in SUPPORT of defts' [20-1] motion for summary judgment, and in OPPOSITION to pltffs' [24-1] motion for summary judgment (lam) (Entered: 08/14/1996)

Aug. 13, 1996

Aug. 13, 1996

PACER
29

DECLARATION of Daniel S. Alter, AUSA for the United States of America, AMICUS CURIAE. (lam) (Entered: 08/14/1996)

Aug. 13, 1996

Aug. 13, 1996

PACER
30

MEMORANDUM in further support, by George E. Pataki, Paul Schectman, N.Y.S. Dept. Crim., Brion Travis, NYS Div. of Parole, George Sanchez, NYS Div. of Probat., Elizabeth M. Devane, NYS Bd. of Ex. Sex in support of [20-1] motion for summary judgment. (cd) (Entered: 08/14/1996)

Aug. 13, 1996

Aug. 13, 1996

PACER
31

STIPULATION concerning classification of offenders. (signed by Judge Denny Chin ). (lam) (Entered: 08/21/1996)

Aug. 20, 1996

Aug. 20, 1996

PACER
32

REPLY MEMORANDUM by John Doe -, Richard Roe, Samuel Poe in support of re: Permanent Injunction (pl) (Entered: 08/29/1996)

Aug. 27, 1996

Aug. 27, 1996

PACER
33

Affirmation of service of Plaintiffs' Reply Memoradum in support of Permanent Injunction upon christine Morrison, Esq. off. of Dennis Vacco by first-class mail on 8/27/96 (pl) (Entered: 08/29/1996)

Aug. 27, 1996

Aug. 27, 1996

PACER
34

STIPULATION and ORDER, of Undisputed Facts ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ). (djc) (Entered: 09/04/1996)

Sept. 3, 1996

Sept. 3, 1996

PACER
35

OPINION # 77338 granting in part, denying in part [24-1] motion for summary judgment, granting in part, denying in part [20-1] motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment......So Ordered... ( Signed by Judge Denny Chin ); (sent to J.C. on 9/24/96) (pl) (Entered: 09/24/1996)

Sept. 24, 1996

Sept. 24, 1996

PACER
36

JUDGMENT - ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: ;that thr the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion (77338) of September 24, 1996, judgment is entered as follows: (1) in favor of plaintiff on their claim that retroactive appication of the notification provisions of the Act would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause; (ii) permanently enjoining defendants, their agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them from enforcing the public notification provisions of the Act including sects 168-1(6)(b) and (c), 168-p, and 169-q, against perons who committed their crimes before January 21, 1996; (iii) in favor of defendants dismissing with prejudice plaintiff's claim that retroactive application of the registration provisions of the Act would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause; and (iv) in favor of defendants dismissing without prejudice plaintiffs' due process and statutory claims as moot. (by James M. Parkison); eod - 09/26/96; Mailed copies and notice of right to appeal. (djc) (Entered: 09/26/1996)

Sept. 25, 1996

Sept. 25, 1996

PACER

Case closed (djc)

Sept. 25, 1996

Sept. 25, 1996

PACER
37

NOTICE OF APPEAL by John Doe -, Richard Roe, Samuel Poe ; from [36-1] judgment order, [35-1] order . Copies of notice of appeal mailed to Attorney(s) of Record: Thomas M. O'Brien, Norman Siegel, Mary Jo White, Eliot Spitzer, Dennis Saffran, Fee pd. $105, rec # 271768. (as) Modified on 10/07/1996 (Entered: 10/07/1996)

Oct. 2, 1996

Oct. 2, 1996

PACER
38

NOTICE OF CROSS-APPEAL by John Doe -, Richard Roe, Samuel Poe From: The part of the final Judgment of this court, entered on September 25, 1996, and opinion dated September 24, 1996. (NO FEE DUE) The Legal Aid Society. (dt) (Entered: 10/17/1996)

Oct. 16, 1996

Oct. 16, 1996

PACER
39

Notice that the original record on appeal has been certified and transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals on 11/12/96: [37-1] appeal by Samuel Poe, Richard Roe, John Doe (pl) (Entered: 11/18/1996)

Nov. 13, 1996

Nov. 13, 1996

PACER
40

NOTICE of change of address by Christopher M. Ferrara; Please correct your records to show may new address as follows: Christopher M. Ferrara, P.tff., Pro Se, P.O. Box 342, Holley, NY 14470-0342 (ls) (Entered: 01/10/1997)

Jan. 9, 1997

Jan. 9, 1997

PACER
41

MANDATE OF USCA (certified copy) Re: [37-1] appeal by Samuel Poe, Richard Roe, John Doe - It is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said district court be and it hereby is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to said district court for further proceeding. (96-6249, 96-6269) George Lange, III, CLerk, USCA. (as) (Entered: 12/29/1997)

Dec. 22, 1997

Dec. 22, 1997

PACER

Case reopened (rag)

Dec. 22, 1997

Dec. 22, 1997

PACER
42

ORDER, the parties shall appear for a conference on 3/11/98 at 9:30 to discuss further proceedings in this action ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies mailed (ae) (Entered: 02/26/1998)

Feb. 25, 1998

Feb. 25, 1998

PACER
43

ORDER; that the permanent injunction ordered by this Court, enjoining the defts from the retroactive application of notification provisions of New York's Sex Offender Registration Act is vacated in its entirety ; ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies mailed (ls) Modified on 03/19/1998 (Entered: 03/18/1998)

March 17, 1998

March 17, 1998

PACER
45

DECLARATION of Susan Hendricks Re: service of two copies of plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order and the memorandum of law in support thereof on Dennis Vacco, Atty. Gen. of N.Y.S. (ys) (Entered: 03/19/1998)

March 17, 1998

March 17, 1998

PACER
46

DECLARATION in support by John Doe -, Richard Roe, Samuel Poe re: plaintiff's motion for an order temporarily restraining defendants from undertaking community notification for persons classified as sex offenders under New York Correction Law Article 6-C. (ys) (Entered: 03/19/1998)

March 17, 1998

March 17, 1998

PACER
47

MEMORANDUM by John Doe -, Richard Roe, Samuel Poe in support of TRO (cd) (Entered: 03/20/1998)

March 17, 1998

March 17, 1998

PACER
44

ORDER, for temporary restraining order with respect to individuals who were convicted of designated sex offenses prior to and who were under the supervision of either the NYS Division of Parole or a local dept of probation on 1/21/96 etc ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies mailed (cd) (Entered: 03/19/1998)

March 18, 1998

March 18, 1998

PACER
48

NOTICE OF MOTION by John Doe -, Richard Roe, Samuel Poe for preliminary injunction and for leave to file an amended complaint, Return date 4/7/98; Declaration in support attached. (djc) (Entered: 04/02/1998)

March 30, 1998

March 30, 1998

PACER
49

MEMORANDUM of LAW by John Doe -, Richard Roe, Samuel Poe in support of [48-1] motion for preliminary injunction, [48-2] motion for leave to file an amended complaint (djc) (Entered: 04/02/1998)

March 30, 1998

March 30, 1998

PACER
50

Filed Memo-Endorsement on letter by Christine E. Morrison to Judge Chin dated 4/9/98, defendants' response to motion reset to 4/20/98 for [48-1] motion for preliminary injunction; reset to 4/20/98 for [48-2] motion for leave to file an amended complaint ; plaintiffs' reply to response to motion reset to 4/24/98 for [48-1] motion for preliminary injunction; reset to 4/24/98 for [48-2] motion for leave to file an amended complaint ; the TRO shall expire at 5:00 p.m. on 5/1/98 unless continued by a subsequent order of this Court ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ) (ae) (Entered: 04/16/1998)

April 15, 1998

April 15, 1998

PACER
51

DECLARATION in opposition by Christine E. Morrison for defts George E. Pataki, Paul Schectman, N.Y.S. Dept. Crim., Brion Travis, NYS Div. of Parole, George Sanchez, NYS Div. of Probat., Elizabeth M. Devane, NYS Bd. of Ex. Sex re [48-1] motion for preliminary injunction, [48-2] motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ls) (Entered: 04/22/1998)

April 20, 1998

April 20, 1998

PACER
52

MEMORANDUM by George E. Pataki, Paul Schectman, N.Y.S. Dept. Crim., Brion Travis, NYS Div. of Parole, George Sanchez, NYS Div. of Probat., Elizabeth M. Devane, NYS Bd. of Ex. Sex in opposition to [48-1] motion for preliminary injunction, [48-2] motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ls) (Entered: 04/22/1998)

April 20, 1998

April 20, 1998

PACER
53

REPLY MEMORANDUM by John Doe, Richard Roe, Samuel Poe in support of re: [48-1] motion for preliminary injunction; [48-2] motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ae) (Entered: 04/27/1998)

April 24, 1998

April 24, 1998

PACER
54

Reply Declaration of Susan L. Hendricks by John Doe, Richard Roe, Samuel Poe in support of [48-1] motion for preliminary injunction; [48-2] motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ae) (Entered: 04/27/1998)

April 24, 1998

April 24, 1998

PACER
55

ORDER; the temporary restraining order set forth in paragraph 3 of the Court's 3/17/98 order is extended until 5/7/98 at 5:00 p.m. ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies mailed (sac) Modified on 05/05/1998 (Entered: 05/04/1998)

May 4, 1998

May 4, 1998

PACER
56

Transcript of record of proceedings before Judge Chin filed for dates of March 16, 1998 (jp) (Entered: 05/06/1998)

May 6, 1998

May 6, 1998

PACER
57

Transcript of record of proceedings before Judge Chin filed for dates of 3/16/98 (bm) (Entered: 05/06/1998)

May 6, 1998

May 6, 1998

PACER
58

OPINION #80564, with respect to the members of the Probationer-Parolee class, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted and defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment is denied ; defendants, their agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them are hereby permanently enjoined from classifying members of the Probationer-Parolee class at higher than risk level one unless and until they are reclassified by a court in accordance with procedures that satisfy the requirements of due process as set forth above ; with respect to the members of the proposed additional class, granting [48-2] motion for leave to file an amended complaint; and granting [48-1] motion for a preliminary injunction; defendants, their agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them are hereby preliminarily enjoined, pending final resolution of this action, from classifying members of the Proposed Additional class at higher than risk level one unless and until they are reclassified by a court in accordance with procedures that satisfy the requirements of due process as set forth above ; with respect to the remaining claims, that is, the claims of the Proposed Additional class, any and all discovery is to be completed by 7/19/98 ; cross-motions for summary judgment are to be filed, simultaneously, no later than 8/21/98, with opposition papers to be filed, simultaneously, no later than 9/18/98. If the parties decide they do not need discovery, the briefing schedule will be accelerated ( Signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies mailed. (ae) Modified on 05/13/1998 (Entered: 05/08/1998)

May 7, 1998

May 7, 1998

PACER

Memo endorsed on motion;, motion granted per Opinion dated 5/7/98 ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies mailed. (cd)

May 19, 1998

May 19, 1998

PACER
59

ORDER, plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint to add claims and named plaintiffs from the "Additional Class" is granted; plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is granted, whereby defendants, their agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them are preliminarily enjoined, pending final resolution of the action, from classifying members of the Additional Class at higher than risk level one for purposes of community notification unless they have been reclassified by a court in accordance with procedures that satisfy the requirements of due process as set out in the Court's Opinion ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies mailed (kw) (Entered: 06/19/1998)

June 18, 1998

June 18, 1998

PACER
60

NOTICE OF APPEAL by George E. Pataki, Paul Schectman, N.Y.S. Dept. Crim., Brion Travis, NYS Div. of Parole, George Sanchez, NYS Div. of Probat., Elizabeth M. Devane, NYS Bd. of Ex. Sex ; from [59-1] order plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint to add claims and named plaintiffs from the "Additional Class" is granted; plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is granted, whereby defendants, their agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them are preliminarily enjoined, pending final resolution of the action, from classifying members of the Additional Class at higher than risk level one for purposes of community notification unless they have been reclassified by a court in accordance with procedures that satisfy the requirements of due process as set out in the Court's Opinion, [59-2] relief, [58-1] order with respect to the members of the Probationer-Parolee class, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted and defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment is denied, [58-2] order defendants, their agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them are hereby permanently enjoined from classifying members of the Probationer-Parolee class at higher than risk level one unless and until they are reclassified by a court in accordance with procedures that satisfy the requirements of due process as set forth above, [58-3] order defendants, their agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them are hereby preliminarily enjoined, pending final resolution of this action, from classifying members of the Proposed Additional class at higher than risk level one unless and until they are reclassified by a court in accordance with procedures that satisfy the requirements of due process as set forth above, [58-4] order with respect to the remaining claims, that is, the claims of the Proposed Additional class, any and all discovery is to be completed by 7/19/98, [58-5] order cross-motions for summary judgment are to be filed, simultaneously, no later than 8/21/98, with opposition papers to be filed, simultaneously, no later than 9/18/98. If the parties decide they do not need discovery, the briefing schedule will be accelerated, [58-6] order . Copies of notice of appeal mailed to Attorney(s) of Record: Thomas M. O'Brien, Esq. $105.00 Appeal filing fee paid on July 14, 1998 on receipt # E 320920. (dt) (Entered: 07/14/1998)

July 14, 1998

July 14, 1998

PACER
61

MANDATE OF USCA WITHDRAWING APPEAL (certified copy) Re: withdrawing [60-1] appeal by NYS Bd. of Ex. Sex, Elizabeth M. Devane, NYS Div. of Probat., George Sanchez, NYS Div. of Parole, Brion Travis, N.Y.S. Dept. Crim., Paul Schectman, George E. Pataki, [38-1] cross appeal by Samuel Poe, Richard Roe, John Doe -. Withdrawal to be wothout prejudice to a reinstatement. (98-7951) Carolyn Clark Campbell, Clerk, USCA. (as) (Entered: 01/19/1999)

Jan. 14, 1999

Jan. 14, 1999

PACER
62

MANDATE OF USCA WITHDRAWING APPEAL (certified copy) Re: withdrawing [60-1] appeal by NYS Bd. of Ex. Sex, Elizabeth M. Devane, NYS Div. of Probat., George Sanchez, NYS Div. of Parole, Brion Travis, N.Y.S. Dept. Crim., Paul Schectman, George E. Pataki. (98-7951) Carolyn Clark Campbell, Clerk, USCA. (as) (Entered: 05/10/1999)

May 10, 1999

May 10, 1999

PACER
63

True Copy of Order from the USCA as to John Doe - RE: [62-1] withdraw appeal . Previous withdrwal of appeal shall be extended to September 15, 1999. (98-7951) Karen Greve Milton, Clerk, USCA. (as) (Entered: 08/19/1999)

Aug. 18, 1999

Aug. 18, 1999

PACER
64

Memo-Endorsement on letter addressed to Judge Chin from Christine E. Morrison, dated 11/29/99, defendants request that your Honor calendar the case for the end of January or any date that is convenient for the Court; A conference will be held on 1/14/00 at 9:30 a.m. (signed by Judge Denny Chin); Copies mailed. (ri) (Entered: 12/06/1999)

Dec. 2, 1999

Dec. 2, 1999

PACER
65

Memo-Endorsement on letter addressed to Judge Chin from Christine E. Morrison, dated 3/15/00. Re: Counsel for the state defts requests an extension of time to have a signed stipulation related to settlement of this case, to 5/31/00. Application granted, but only to 4/28/00 . ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ); Copies mailed. (sn) (Entered: 03/20/2000)

March 20, 2000

March 20, 2000

PACER
66

Order; that this action, having been settled, is discontinued with prejudice, except that the discontinuance is without prejudice to reinstatement of the case by either side within 60 days, in the event that the parties are unable to execute a final stipulation of settlement before then. ( signed by Judge Denny Chin ) (jp) (Entered: 11/22/2000)

Nov. 22, 2000

Nov. 22, 2000

PACER

Case closed. (jp)

Nov. 22, 2000

Nov. 22, 2000

PACER
67

ORDER, the case is reinstated so that the stipulation of settlement can be submitted and so ordered by the Court. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 6/4/04) copies sent by chambers(cd, ) (Entered: 06/08/2004)

June 7, 2004

June 7, 2004

PACER
68

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; the following procedures will be implemented within the time frames specified in this document. The parties agree that this action should be dimisssed with prejudice and the injunctions previously issued in this action vacated consistent with the terms of the Stipulation. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 6/4/04) (sac, ) (Entered: 06/08/2004)

June 7, 2004

June 7, 2004

PACER
69

MOTION for an order, enforcing the Stipulation of Settlement in this case. Document filed by Richard Roe, Samuel Poe. Affirmation of Thomas M. O'Brien in support attached. (sac, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)

Jan. 20, 2006

Jan. 20, 2006

PACER
70

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 69 MOTION for an order, enforcing the Stipulation of Settlement in this case. Document filed by Richard Roe, Samuel Poe. (sac, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)

Jan. 23, 2006

Jan. 23, 2006

PACER
71

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 69 MOTION for Settlement.. Document filed by George E. Pataki. (djc, ) (Entered: 02/16/2006)

Feb. 15, 2006

Feb. 15, 2006

PACER
72

AFFIDAVIT of Pamela G.S. Gaitor in Opposition re: 69 MOTION for Settlement.. Document filed by The New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. (djc, ) (Entered: 02/16/2006)

Feb. 15, 2006

Feb. 15, 2006

PACER
73

REPLY MEMORANDUM in response to arguments put forth by defendants in their Memorandum in opposition to motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, dated February 15,2006. Document filed by Richard Roe, Samuel Poe. (jmi, ) (Entered: 02/23/2006)

Feb. 22, 2006

Feb. 22, 2006

PACER
74

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 2/28/06 at 10:00 a.m. before Judge Denny Chin. (js, ) (Entered: 03/30/2006)

March 30, 2006

March 30, 2006

PACER
75

OPINION # 93000, Granting re: 69 MOTION for enforce the Stipulation of Settlement. filed by Richard Roe,, Samuel Poe,. Defendants will be enjoined from applying the Amendment to class members in a manner inconsistent w/ the terms of the Stipulation. Defendants are not precluded from applying the Amendment to individuals not convered by the Stipulation. Plaintiff shall submit a proposed order on notice w/in 7 days hereof. In the meantime, and until the Court enters a final order, this decision is stayed. The parties shall confer on the question of a stay pending appeal. If they are unable to agree on the issuance of a stay pending appeal, they are to submit letters setting forth their respective position w/in 7 days hereof. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 4/12/06) (ae, ) (Entered: 04/12/2006)

April 12, 2006

April 12, 2006

PACER
76

OPINION: For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motion to enforce the stipulation is granted. Defendants well be enjoined from applying the amendment to class members in a manner inconsistent with the terms of the stipulation. Defendants are not precluded from applying the amendment to individuals not covered by the stipulation. Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed order on notice within 7 days hereof. In the meantime, and until the Court enters a final order, this decision is stayed. The parties shall confer on the question of a stay pending appeal. If they are unable to agree on the issuance of a stay pending appeal, they are to submit letters setting forth their respective position within 7 days hereof. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 4/12/2006) (lb, ) (Entered: 04/12/2006)

April 12, 2006

April 12, 2006

RECAP
77

ORDER; plaintiffs' motion is granted, and the terms of the 10-year limit on the duration of registration for those who been designated a Risk Level One or a Risk Level Two under procedures of the Stipulation shall be enforeced. The Court has considered the parties' letters addressing the issue of a stay pending appeal. Defendants' request for a stay of this order pending appeal is granted, on the condition that defendants promptly file their notice of appeal and promptly thereafter note in the Second Circuit for an expedited briefing and argument schedule. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 4/25/06) (sac, ) (Entered: 04/27/2006)

April 27, 2006

April 27, 2006

PACER
78

NOTICE OF APPEAL from 77 Order. Document filed by The New York State Division of Probation, Elizabeth M. Devane, The New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, George E. Pataki, Paul Schectman, The New York State Dept. of Criminal Justice Services, Brion Travis, New York State Division of Parole, George Sanchez. Filing fee $ 455.00, receipt number E 577959. Copies of Notice of Appeal mailed to Attorney(s) of Record: The Legal Aid Society. (tp, ) (Entered: 05/02/2006)

May 1, 2006

May 1, 2006

PACER

Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 78 Notice of Appeal. (tp, )

May 2, 2006

May 2, 2006

PACER

Transmission of Notice of Appeal to the District Judge re: 78 Notice of Appeal. (tp, )

May 2, 2006

May 2, 2006

PACER
79

Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Index). Notice that the Original index to the record on Appeal for 78 Notice of Appeal, filed by George Sanchez,, New York State Division of Parole,, Brion Travis,, George E. Pataki,, Paul Schectman,, The New York State Dept. of Criminal Justice Services,, The New York State Division of Probation,, Elizabeth M. Devane,, The New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, USCA Case Number 06-2126, 3 Copies of the index, Certified Clerk Certificate and Certified Docket Sheet were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd, ) (Entered: 06/07/2006)

June 7, 2006

June 7, 2006

PACER
80

ORDER; the stay contained in the order is hereby modified to permit continued application of the Act to level 1 and 2 members of the class, pending appeal, only as the Act existed on 4/25/2006; defendants are enjoined from applying any subsequent amendments to the Act, including the New Amendment, to level 1 and 2 members of the class during the pendency of the current appeal. Of course, defendants are free to apply the New Amendment to level 1 and 2 offenders who are not covered by the Stipulation. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 7/17/06) (kco, ) (Entered: 07/18/2006)

July 18, 2006

July 18, 2006

PACER
81

ORDER;...the July 17th Order stands and defendants' request for modification or clarification is denied. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 7/24/06) (djc, ) (Entered: 07/27/2006)

July 26, 2006

July 26, 2006

PACER
82

NOTICE OF APPEAL from 80 Order,,, 81 Order. Document filed by The New York State Division of Probation, Elizabeth M. Devane, The New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, George E. Pataki, Paul Schectman, The New York State Dept. of Criminal Justice Services, Brion Travis, New York State Division of Parole, George Sanchez. Filing fee $ 455.00, receipt number E 586989. Copies of Notice of Appeal mailed to Attorney(s) of Record: The Legal Aid Society. (nd, ) (Entered: 08/07/2006)

Aug. 7, 2006

Aug. 7, 2006

PACER

Transmission of Notice of Appeal to the District Judge re: 82 Notice of Appeal,. (nd, )

Aug. 7, 2006

Aug. 7, 2006

PACER

Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 82 Notice of Appeal,. (nd, )

Aug. 7, 2006

Aug. 7, 2006

PACER
83

ORDER: Defendants' request for a stay of the relief granted in the July 17th and July 24th orders is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 8/8/2006) (lb, ) (Entered: 08/09/2006)

Aug. 9, 2006

Aug. 9, 2006

PACER
84

ORDER of USCA (Certified Copy) as to 82 Notice of Appeal, filed by George Sanchez,, New York State Division of Parole,, Brion Travis,, George E. Pataki,, Paul Schectman,, The New York State Dept. of Criminal Justice Services,, The New York State Division of Probation,, Elizabeth M. Devane,, The New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders,, 78 Notice of Appeal, filed by George Sanchez,, New York State Division of Parole,, Brion Travis,, George E. Pataki,, Paul Schectman,, The New York State Dept. of Criminal Justice Services,, The New York State Division of Probation,, Elizabeth M. Devane,, The New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, USCA Case Number 06-2126-cv, 06-3709-cv. Upon consideration of the Appellants` motion to consolidate No. 06-3709-cv with No. 06-2126-cv, the motion is GRANTED. Scheduling Order #1, entered August 18, 2006, in No. 06-3709-cv is modified to the following extent: The parties` briefs may be submitted in letter form; Appellants` brief will be filed by September 25, 2006, Appellees` brief will be filed by October 10, 2006, and Appellants` reply brief will be filed by October 17, 2006, and the appeal will be submitted without oral argument. Upon consideration of the Appellants` motion for a stay of the District Court`s injunction entered July 17, 2006, as clarified by the Court`s order entered July 24, 2006, and the Appellants` motion for a full stay of the District Court`s injunction entered April 25, 2006 (that injunction having been partially stayed by the District Court), both stay motions are DENIED. By denying the pending stay motions, this Court intends to permit the State to apply the expanded duration requirements of the Sex Offender Registration Act ("SORA") (imposed by legislative amendment effective January 18, 2006) but not the expanded scope-of-notification requirements of SORA (imposed by legislative amendment effective June 23, 2006) during the pendency of these consolidated appeals. Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk USCA. Certified: 9/13/2006. (nd, ) (Entered: 09/18/2006)

Sept. 15, 2006

Sept. 15, 2006

PACER
85

MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to 78 Notice of Appeal, filed by The New York State Dept. of Criminal Justice Services, George Sanchez, Brion Travis, New York State Division of Parole, Paul Schectman, The New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, Elizabeth M. Devane, The New York State Division of Probation, George E. Pataki, 82 Notice of Appeal, filed by The New York State Dept. of Criminal Justice Services, George Sanchez, Brion Travis, New York State Division of Parole, The New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, Paul Schectman, Elizabeth M. Devane, The New York State Division of Probation, George E. Pataki USCA Case Number 06-2126-cv(L), 06-3709-cv(CON). Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the orders of said District Court be and they hereby are VACATED in accordance with the opinion of this court. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA. Issued As Mandate: 6/5/2007. (nd) (Entered: 06/06/2007)

June 5, 2007

June 5, 2007

PACER

Transmission of USCA Mandate/Order to the District Judge re: 85 USCA Mandate. (nd)

June 6, 2007

June 6, 2007

PACER
86

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Denny Chin from Thomas M. O'Brien dated 8/22/07 re: a request for the following briefing schedule in regards to plaintiff's motion to modify the stipulation: Plaintiffs' Brief due by 8/31/2007. Defendants' Brief due by 9/21/2007. Plaintiffs' Reply Brief due by 9/28/2007. Oral Argument set for 10/23/2007 at 4:00 PM before Judge Denny Chin. ENDORSEMENT: Approved. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 8/27/07) (kco) (Entered: 08/29/2007)

Aug. 29, 2007

Aug. 29, 2007

PACER
87

AFFIRMATION of Thomas O,Brien in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify the Stipulation of Settlement. Document filed by John Doe, Richard Roe, Samuel Poe. (cd) (Entered: 09/04/2007)

Aug. 31, 2007

Aug. 31, 2007

PACER
88

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify Stipulation. Document filed by John Doe, Richard Roe, Samuel Poe. (cd) (Entered: 09/04/2007)

Aug. 31, 2007

Aug. 31, 2007

PACER
89

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition to Motion To Modify Stipulation. Document filed by George E. Pataki et al. (cd) (Entered: 09/24/2007)

Sept. 21, 2007

Sept. 21, 2007

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Criminal Justice (Other)

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 6, 1996

Closing Date: Dec. 3, 2007

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All persons convicted of a sex offense and who have been or will be subject to NY's Sex Offender Registration Act.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

State of New York, State

New York State Dept. of Criminal Justice Services, State

New York State Div. of Probation, State

NY State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Ex Post Facto

Equal Protection

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1996 - None

Content of Injunction:

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process