Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

A.W. v. Peterson

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

February 16, 2016

A.W., a minor child, by and through JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, as Next Friends and Guardians, Plaintiffs,
v.
DOUG PETERSON, Attorney General of Nebraska; COLONEL BRADLEY RICE, Superintendent of Law Enforcement and Public Safety for Nebraska State Patrol; PAUL WOOD, County Attorney for Red Willow County; and GENE MAHON, Sheriff for Red Willow County, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RICHARD G. KOPF SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

This matter is before court on cross-motions for summary judgment (Filing Nos. 56, 59) based on a joint set of stipulated facts (Filing No. 55). Questions of law presented by the motions are whether Nebraska’s Sex Offender Registration Act (“SORA”), Neb. Rev. Stat.§§ 29-4001 to 29-4014, requires the minor plaintiff, A.W., to register publicly as a sex offender, and, if so, whether the Act is constitutional. In particular, the plaintiffs claim that SORA’s public registration requirement, if applied to A.W., will (1) subject him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 9 of the Nebraska Constitution (Filing No. 24, ¶ 38); (2) deny him equal protection contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 3 of the Nebraska Constitution (Filing No. 24, ¶ 40); (3) deprive him of the right to substantive due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 3 of the Nebraska Constitution (Filing No. 24, ¶ 42)[1]; and (4) violate the privileges and immunities clause of the Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 16 of the Nebraska Constitution” (Filing No. 24, ¶ 44).

Both motions for summary judgment were filed on December 23, 2015, which was the deadline established in the court’s final progression order (Filing No. 51). The defendants have moved for summary judgment on all four claims. The plaintiffs’ motion, however, only requests that judgment be entered in their favor on the equal protection and substantive due process claims. The motion’s “statement of relief sought, ” see Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1)(C), reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court:

1. Grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment in their favor for all the causes of action pled in Counts Two and Three as against all Defendants;
2. Reserve the issue of damages flowing from enforcement of the challenged provisions;
3. Reserve the issue of attorney fees; and
4. Set the matter for oral argument to address the issues raise herein.

(Filing No. 59 at CM/ECF p. 2).

On January 13, 2016, the same day they responded to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment by briefing only the Eighth Amendment claim, the plaintiffs filed a motion “for leave to amend Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment to include Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim and strike Plaintiffs’ prayer regarding damages” (Filing No. 65 at CM/ECF p. 1). The motion concludes:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court:

1. Grant Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Summary Judgment in their favor for all the causes of action pled in Counts One, Two and Three as against all Defendants;
2. Reserve the issue of attorney fees; and
3. Set the matter for oral argument to address the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.