DOE v. Curran et al
Filing
107
FINAL JUDGMENT DISSOLVING the Preliminary Injunction and Entering Judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)
Case 3:18-cv-11935-RHC-DRG ECF No. 107, PageID.1490 Filed 12/29/21 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
_______________________________________________
JOHN DOE and
JOHN DOE 2,
File No. 18-11935
Hon. Robert H. Cleland
Plaintiffs,
v.
BRENDAN P. CURRAN, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________
FINAL JUDGMENT
1.
On January 10, 2020, this Court issued an opinion and order
determining that Defendant Schriner is entitled to quasi-judicial
immunity regarding Plaintiffs individual capacity claims, and that
Defendants Curran, Nowicki and Puzon are entitled to qualified
immunity regarding Plaintiffs individual capacity claims. (ECF No. 91,
PageID.1204-1219.)
2.
The January 10, 2020 opinion and order “disposes of all the claims
for money damages and leaves the sole issue in this case the claim for
injunctive and declaratory relief brought against Defendants in their
official capacity.” (ECF No. 91, PageID.1221-1222.)
1
Case 3:18-cv-11935-RHC-DRG ECF No. 107, PageID.1491 Filed 12/29/21 Page 2 of 6
3.
Also in the January 10, 2020 opinion and order, as to Plaintiff’s
official capacity claims against all Defendants, this Court determined
that “Plaintiffs’ requested relief is the precise remedy sought by the
certified class in Does II [Doe, et al. v Whitmer, et al., USDC ED of MI
No. 16-13137]. Plaintiffs do not dispute their membership in the
mandatory Does II class nor do they argue that their claims for
declaratory or injunctive relief differ from those of the certified class.
(ECF No. 79, PageID.1081–82.) As members of the certified Rule
23(b)(2) class in Does II, Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive
relief are subsumed in the class action claims. Plaintiffs have no right
to separately litigate their claims for injunctive relief because doing so
would create the potential for inconsistent judgments.” (ECF No. 91,
PageID.1220.) This case was stayed pending the resolution of Does II.
(ECF No. 91, PageID.1222-1223.)
4.
The Michigan Legislature thereafter passed, and the Michigan
governor signed, Michigan Public Act 295 of 2020 (HB 5679), which
repealed certain provisions and amended other provisions of Michigan’s
Sex Offenders Registration Act, and which took effect on March 24,
2021 (“new SORA”).
2
Case 3:18-cv-11935-RHC-DRG ECF No. 107, PageID.1492 Filed 12/29/21 Page 3 of 6
5.
Under the new SORA, the specific provisions challenged by
Plaintiffs in their official capacity claims have been repealed effective
March 24, 2021, including the “student safety zone” provisions, Mich.
Comp. Laws §§ 28.733-735.
6.
An amended final judgment was entered in the Does II class
action on August 26, 2021. (See Amended Final Judgment, Doe, et al. v
Whitmer, et al., USDC ED of MI No. 16-13137, ECF No. 126, Page
ID.2566-2575.)
7.
The amended final judgment in Does II declares Michigan’s pre-
2021 SORA to be punishment and also declares that the pre-2021 SORA
is null and void as applied to members of the ex post facto subclasses,
including Plaintiffs, regarding conduct that occurred before March 24,
2021. (See Amended Final Judgment, ¶ 2, USDC ED of MI No. 1613137, ECF No. 126, PageID.2569.)
8.
The amended final judgment in Does II permanently enjoins
enforcement of any provision of the pre-2021 SORA against members of
the ex post facto subclasses, including Plaintiffs, for conduct that
occurred before March 24, 2021. (See Amended Final Judgment, ¶ 3,
ECF No. 126, PageID.2569.)
3
Case 3:18-cv-11935-RHC-DRG ECF No. 107, PageID.1493 Filed 12/29/21 Page 4 of 6
9.
The amended final judgment in Does II declares certain provisions
of the pre-2021 SORA unconstitutional and enjoins enforcement of
those provisions against any registrant, including Plaintiffs, for any
violation that occurred before March 24, 2021. The declaration and
injunction apply to the specific provisions challenged by Plaintiffs in
their official capacity claims, including the “student safety zone”
provisions, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 28.733-735. (See Amended Final
Judgment, ¶ 4, USDC ED of MI No. 16-13137, ECF No. 126,
PageID.2570.)
10.
The amended final judgment in Does II mandates that the pre-
2021 SORA must be interpreted as incorporating a knowledge
requirement. (See Amended Final Judgment, ¶ 4, USDC ED of MI No.
16-13137, ECF No. 126, PageID.2570.)
11.
“[This] court cannot enter separate injunctive relief for Plaintiffs
because their claim for injunctive relief is subsumed by the Does II
class.” (ECF No. 91, PageID.1221.) As a result of the relief granted in
Does II and the legislative changes to SORA, Plaintiffs claims for
injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants in their official
capacity are moot.
4
Case 3:18-cv-11935-RHC-DRG ECF No. 107, PageID.1494 Filed 12/29/21 Page 5 of 6
12.
As a result of the relief granted in Does II, the preliminary
injunction granted to John Doe 1 in this case (ECF No. 27, Page ID.126128) is no longer necessary and the preliminary injunction is
DISSOLVED.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that
final judgment is entered in favor of Defendants. All of Plaintiffs’
individual and official capacity claims against all Defendants are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 1
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 29, 2021
S/Robert H. Cleland
Hon. Robert H. Cleland
U.S. District Judge
While the parties stipulated to the vast majority of this order, they could not
reach an agreement on whether Plaintiff’s claims should be considered “resolved” or
“dismissed with prejudice.” The court has opted to use the later term because it
appears to be most consistent with how courts have previously interpreted the effect
of mandatory class certification on related litigation. “[T]he binding effect of a classaction judgment” has both claim and issue preclusive effects. See § 1789 Effect of a
Judgment in a Class Action—In General, 7AA Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1789 (3d
ed.). And when a claim has been found to be barred by res judicata, this court has
used the term “dismissed” to terminate the litigation. See, e.g., Daniel v. W. Asset
Mgmt., No. 14-13573, 2015 WL 2405708, at *4 (E.D. Mich. May 20, 2015) (Cleland,
J.) (“dismiss[ing]” claim due to “res judicata”).
5
1
Case 3:18-cv-11935-RHC-DRG ECF No. 107, PageID.1495 Filed 12/29/21 Page 6 of 6
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, December 29, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner_______________________________/
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(810) 292-6522
S:\Cleland\Cleland\AAB\Opinions and Orders\Civil\18-11935.CURRAN.Judgment.AAB.docx
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?