Bunch v. BrittonÂ
2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 435
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 1993 Bunch (then 17) pleaded guilty in Michigan to third-degree criminal sexual conduct; he later moved to North Carolina with his son and, after consulting the sheriff, registered as a sex offender in February 2012.
- Bunch petitioned in Cleveland County superior court to terminate his NC registration; the court granted termination in June 2012 on the ground his Michigan offense was not reportable in NC; the State’s appeal failed and the order stood (In re Bunch).
- In Aug. 2015 Bunch sued two officials in their official capacities: Lisa Britton (SBI supervisor) and Michael Proctor (Cleveland County sheriff’s registry administrator), seeking declaratory relief, an injunction changing registry procedures, and monetary damages under Article I, § 19 (law of the land; equal protection).
- Defendants moved to dismiss on sovereign/governmental immunity, standing, failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6)), and Proctor moved for judgment on the pleadings (Rule 12(c)). Trial court dismissed all claims with prejudice; Bunch appealed.
- The Court of Appeals held sovereign/governmental immunity did not automatically bar direct constitutional claims under state caselaw (Corum line), but nevertheless affirmed dismissal on the merits: (1) injunctive relief denied for lack of standing to seek statutory/process changes; (2) liberty claim failed because Bunch had an opportunity under Michigan law to seek removal before moving to NC and thus was not deprived without process by NC officials performing nondiscretionary duties; (3) equal protection claim failed because NC treated him like others with final out-of-state convictions requiring registration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign/governmental immunity bars Bunch's state-constitutional claims | Bunch sued officials in their official capacities and relied on Corum to proceed directly under the state Constitution | Defendants asserted immunity and that no waiver was alleged; also argued lack of adequate state remedy and standing | Immunity does not bar direct Article I claims (Corum line), so immunity was not a jurisdictional bar here |
| Standing for requested injunction (ordering procedural change to registry) | Bunch sought an injunction requiring Britton to create a pre-deprivation review process for future registrants | Defendants contended Bunch lacked standing to compel structural/statutory changes and his registration was already terminated | Bunch lacked standing to obtain injunction changing statutory/process framework; injunction claim properly dismissed |
| Whether NC officials violated Bunch's "law of the land"/liberty interests (procedural due process) by placing him on the registry | Bunch argued he was compelled to register in NC without a meaningful pre-deprivation hearing | Defendants argued registration was mandatory under NC statute based on his final out-of-state conviction and they had no discretion; moreover Michigan law provided a removal procedure which Bunch did not pursue | Liberty claim dismissed: NC officials performed nondiscretionary duties under §14‑208.7(a); Bunch had opportunity under Michigan law to seek removal but failed to do so, so no deprivation by NC defendants |
| Equal protection under Article I, § 19 | Bunch argued he was treated differently than similarly situated 17-year-olds convicted of similar acts in NC | Defendants argued NC uniformly requires registration for persons with final out-of-state convictions that are reportable where committed; Bunch was treated the same as others in that category | Equal protection claim dismissed: NC law treated Bunch the same as all with final out-of-state reportable convictions; claim failed on the pleadings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Bunch, 227 N.C. App. 258 (N.C. Ct. App.) (background appellate decision upholding trial court order terminating Bunch's NC registration)
- Corum v. Univ. of N.C., 330 N.C. 761 (N.C. 1992) (sovereign immunity does not bar direct claims for violations of state constitutional rights)
- Craig v. New Hanover Cty. Bd. of Educ., 363 N.C. 334 (N.C. 2009) (reaffirming Corum principle and allowing direct state-constitutional claims despite asserted immunity)
- Richmond Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Cowell, 225 N.C. App. 583 (N.C. Ct. App.) (applying Corum/Craig line to allow Article IX constitutional claims against State agencies)
- In re W.B.M., 202 N.C. App. 606 (N.C. Ct. App.) (due process analysis where multi-tier discretionary review for placement on Responsible Individuals List led to procedural-due-process concerns)
- Fowler v. State, 197 N.C. App. 1 (N.C. Ct. App.) (explaining substantive vs. procedural due process and standards of scrutiny)
- Burgin v. Owen, 181 N.C. App. 511 (N.C. Ct. App.) (standards for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)