University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto CJ-NV-0001
Docket / Court 2:08-cv-00822-JCM-PAL ( D. Nev. )
State/Territory Nevada
Case Type(s) Criminal Justice (Other)
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
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 ... read more >
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.

However, as of June 10, 2014, the parties did not submit a consent decree. Instead, the case has 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.

As of June 22, 2014, the parties had not submitted a consent decree.

Maurice Youkanna - 06/22/2014


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Due Process
Equal Protection
Ex Post Facto
Free Exercise Clause
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
General
Classification / placement
Record-keeping
Records Disclosure
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) State of Nevada
Plaintiff Description Plaintiffs are sex offenders seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against new state sex offender laws.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief Litigation
Settlement
Form of Settlement Private Settlement Agreement
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Links Philadelphia Forfeiture
http://ij.org/case/philadelphia-forfeiture/
By: Institute for Justice (Institute for Justice)
[ Detail ]

Docket(s)
2:08-cv-822 (D. Nev.) 05/22/2014
CJ-NV-0001-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [Jury Trial Demanded] 06/24/2008
CJ-NV-0001-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [Jury Trial Demanded] 07/07/2008
CJ-NV-0001-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation to Dismiss Certain Named Defendants 07/28/2008 (D. Nev.)
CJ-NV-0001-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation to Dismiss Certain Named Defendants (Gammick and Haley) 07/28/2008 (D. Nev.)
CJ-NV-0001-0005.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Granting Motion for Temporary Protective Order and Motion to Proceed under Pseudonym] 08/18/2008 (2008 WL 3875263) (D. Nev.)
CJ-NV-0001-0006.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Denying Motion to Intervene] 09/05/2008 (D. Nev.)
CJ-NV-0001-0007.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' Revised Order Granting Permanent Injunction 10/07/2008 (719 F.Supp.2d 258) (D. Nev.)
CJ-NV-0001-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto - Order [Granting Motion for Attorney's Fees] 01/12/2009 (D. Nev.)
CJ-NV-0001-0009.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto - Order [Denying Motion to Stay] 04/08/2009 (D. Nev.)
CJ-NV-0001-0010.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto - Order [Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw Their Motion to Compel] 07/23/2009 (D. Nev.)
CJ-NV-0001-0011.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion (Ninth Circuit) 02/10/2012 (670 F.3d 1046)
CJ-NV-0001-0001.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Order Denying Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing en Banc 03/27/2012 (D. Nev.)
CJ-NV-0001-0013.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Affirming Grant of Attorney Fees to Plaintiffs 06/18/2012
CJ-NV-0001-0014.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Clarifying Injunction 02/08/2013 (D. Nev.)
CJ-NV-0001-0015.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Bea, Carlos T. (Ninth Circuit)
CJ-NV-0001-0001 | CJ-NV-0001-0014
Leen, Peggy A. (D. Nev.) [Magistrate]
CJ-NV-0001-0006 | CJ-NV-0001-9000
Mahan, James C. (D. Nev.)
CJ-NV-0001-0004 | CJ-NV-0001-0005 | CJ-NV-0001-0007 | CJ-NV-0001-0008 | CJ-NV-0001-0009 | CJ-NV-0001-0010 | CJ-NV-0001-0011 | CJ-NV-0001-0013 | CJ-NV-0001-0015 | CJ-NV-0001-9000
Stafford, William Henry Jr. (FISC, N.D. Fla.)
CJ-NV-0001-0001 | CJ-NV-0001-0014
Trott, Stephen S. (Ninth Circuit)
CJ-NV-0001-0001 | CJ-NV-0001-0014
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Langford, Robert (Nevada)
CJ-NV-0001-0002 | CJ-NV-0001-0003 | CJ-NV-0001-9000
Lichtenstein, Allen (Nevada)
CJ-NV-0001-9000
McLetchie, Maggie (Nevada)
CJ-NV-0001-0002 | CJ-NV-0001-0003 | CJ-NV-0001-9000
Rowland, Lee B. (Nevada)
CJ-NV-0001-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Barker, Stephanie A (Nevada)
CJ-NV-0001-9000
Buchanan, Kimberly (Nevada)
CJ-NV-0001-9000
Campbell, Jack D. (Nevada)
CJ-NV-0001-9000
Creekman, David C (Nevada)
CJ-NV-0001-9000
Crosby, Nicholas (Nevada)
CJ-NV-0001-9000
Palal, Binu (Nevada)
CJ-NV-0001-9000
Other Lawyers Jackson, Terrence M (Nevada)
CJ-NV-0001-9000
Peters, Michael L (Nevada)
CJ-NV-0001-9000
Roske, Randall J (Nevada)
CJ-NV-0001-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -