42 F. Supp. 3d 888
N.D. Ill.2014Background
- Derfus and Petkiewicz, sex offender registrants, challenge Chicago’s SORA registration policy for homeless individuals; policy allegedly requires shelter residency proof and shelter-address IDs rather than homeless registration; SORA requires in-person registration, fees, photos, and weekly reporting for those without fixed residence; Plaintiffs allege the City denies homeless offenders the ability to register as homeless; State police show them as non-compliant when the shelter address is used; a temporary restraining order led to a City agreement allowing weekly homeless registration
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek injunctive relief | Plaintiffs argue ongoing injury and threat if policy persists | Defendants contend Plaintiffs’ current compliant registrations negate future injury | Plaintiffs lack standing for injunctive relief |
| Equal protection challenge to homeless vs. non-homeless offenders | Homeless offenders are treated differently without rational basis | Differences are rationally related to monitoring addresses under SORA | Equal protection claim dismissed |
| Procedural due process claim against City | City denied rights to register without due process | Claim is federal due process; state law governs registration | Due process claim stated against City |
| Qualified immunity for individual officers | Officers violated clearly established rights by denying homeless registration | Molnar not clearly establishing the right; no clearly established right cited | Officers entitled to qualified immunity; damages claim dismissed |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state law claim | State claim should proceed alongside federal claim | If federal claims are dismissed, no basis to retain state claim | State law claim maintained; court retains supplemental jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (pleading must plead enough to state a claim plausible on its face)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (specific facts not required; notice sufficient to plead a claim)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (standing for injunctive relief requires imminent, real injury)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (Sup. Ct. 1976) (due process balancing factors for liberty interests)
- Johnson v. City of Chicago, 2013 WL 3811545 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (registration consequences can create liberty interests implicating due process)