Summary
holding that equal protection claim failed because plaintiff was not a member of a protected class and did not explain how he was treated differently from other similarly situated individuals
Summary of this case from Massey v. JonesOpinion
Civil No. 07-5186.
March 17, 2009
ORDER
Now on this 17th day of March, 2009, comes on for consideration the Report and Recommendation (R R) issued by the Honorable James Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas (Doc. #149) concerning the following motions:
* plaintiff's motions for summary judgment (Doc. #36, #66 and #98 — hereinafter called "Plaintiff's Motions);
* the motion for summary judgment filed by the Area Manager or Supervisor, Leanne Baker, Mark Bernthal, Charles Pruitt, and Paula Stitz (Doc. #74 — hereinafter called "Defendants' #74 Motion"); and
* the motion for summary judgment filed by Grimes Unit Records Supervisor Linda Gates, Grimes Unit Warden John Maples, and Arkansas Department of Correction Director Larry Norris (Doc. #95 — hereinafter called "Defendants' #95 Motion")
and the Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows with respect to the same:
1. Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. #150) to the R R; ADC and the State Defendants also filed objections (Doc #152) to the R R; and plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendants' Objection (Doc. #160) to the R R.
2. The Court, having considered the R R and the filings of the parties, finds and orders as follows:
(a) Recommendations concerning Plaintiff's Motion — The Magistrate Judge recommended in the R R that Plaintiff's Motions should be granted in part, and denied in part.
After review, the Court finds that defendants' objections to these recommendations should be, and they hereby are, overruled. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motions should be, and they hereby are:
* granted as to his due process claim — in that the Court concludes that plaintiff's right to procedural due process was violated when he was placed on the Arkansas Sex Offender Registry without being afforded an opportunity to contest the Act's application to his 1981 conviction in Illinois; and
* denied in all other respects.
(b) Recommendations concerning Defendants' #74 Motion — The Magistrate Judge recommended in the R R that the motion for summary judgment filed by the Area Manager or Supervisor, Leanne Baker, Mark Bernthal, Charles Pruitt, and Paula Stitz — Defendants' #74 Motion — should be denied in part, and granted in part.
After review, the Court finds that plaintiff's objections to these recommendations should be, and they hereby are, overruled. Accordingly, Defendants' #74 Motion should be, and it hereby is:
* granted with respect to plaintiff's claims that his rights to substantive due process, equal protection, double jeopardy and his rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause were violated; and
* denied with respect to plaintiff's claim that his right to procedural due process was violated.
(c) Recommendations concerning Defendants' #95 Motion — The Magistrate Judge recommended in the R R that the motion for summary judgment ( Doc. 95) filed by Grimes Unit Records Supervisor Linda Gates, Grimes Unit Warden John Maples, and Arkansas Department of Correction Director Larry Norris — the Defendants' #95 Motion — should be granted in part and denied in part.
After review, the Court finds that plaintiff's objections to these recommendations should be, and they hereby are, overruled. Accordingly, Defendants' #95 Motion should be, and it hereby is:
* granted with respect to plaintiff's claims for monetary damages against these defendants in their official capacities — such damages are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment; and
* granted with respect to plaintiff's claims that his rights to substantive due process, equal protection, double jeopardy and his rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause were violated; and
* denied in all other respects.
3. This matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge Marschewski for further action as may be necessary in light of the foregoing.