Doe v. Virginia Department of State Police
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7403
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Doe challenged Va. Code §§9.1-900 et seq. and 18.2-370.5 and a Board policy restricting anonymous entry requests to schools/daycares.
- Doe, a sexually violent offender, is barred from school/daily access and must seek permission from a circuit court and the Board; she cannot be removed from the Registry.
- She alleged violations of substantive due process, procedural due process, associational, and free exercise rights.
- The district court dismissed most claims as unripe/impact not yet concrete; only procedural due process claim against Flaherty survived ripeness/standing analysis but was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Doe had not yet sought permission from state bodies to enter school property, nor challenged the reclassification before federal court; procedural due process claim remained possible but others did not become justiciable at that time.
- The majority affirmed; the concurrence and dissent disagreed on standing/ripe aspects and potential for remand for discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing and ripeness of most claims | Doe seeks relief now for direct entry bans | Most claims are not ripe or traceable | Most claims lack standing/are not ripe; procedural claim ripe against Flaherty survives but fails on merits. |
| Procedural due process against Flaherty | Reclassification and public Registry without challenge violates due process | Conn. v. Doe controls; no hearing required for registry listing | Ruled in favor of Flaherty; Doe's procedural due process claim insufficiently actionable. |
| Anonymous petition to Board vs. state process | Board policy denying anonymous petitions infringes due process/association | State processes may be used to petition; policy unresolved | Claims about Board policy not ripe/traceable while state processes exist. |
| Relation to state exhaustion Patsy rule | Exhaustion not required for §1983 claims | Exhaustion or finality required before federal action | Patsy/exhaustion not applicable to this procedural posture; majority requires state relief before federal action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements)
- Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003) (registration disclosure not contingent on danger removal hearing)
- Patsy v. Bd. of Regents, 457 U.S. 496 (1982) (exhaustion not required for §1983 claims (exhaustion vs. finality))
- Williamson Cnty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (finality vs. exhaustion distinction in §1983 cases)
- Franks v. Ross, 313 F.3d 184 (4th Cir. 2002) (ripeness in permitting agency decisionmaking)
- Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Patterson, 566 F.3d 138 (2009) (redressability where other grounds exist)
- Townes v. Jarvis, 577 F.3d 543 (2009) (remedies on §1983 actions and immediate relief)