851 F. Supp. 2d 447
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Plaintiff Duane Moore, a Level 3 sex offender, challenges County Law § 428 and Town Law § 215 as unconstitutional and seeks to enjoin enforcement.
- County Law § 428 bans sex offenders from residing within 1/4 mile of schools, day-care centers, or playgrounds in Suffolk County.
- Town Law § 215 bans sex offenders from residing within 1 mile or 2,000 feet of schools and from near child-care or municipal recreational facilities in Southampton.
- Plaintiff previously lived at Miller Road in Southampton, was deemed noncompliant under § 428, and moved to Longview Road; his prior relocations are central to standing.
- Plaintiff also alleges state-law preemption under SORA and seeks declaratory, injunctive relief; district court addresses standing, abstention, and state preemption first.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge local laws | Moore has injury-in-fact from forced relocation. | Southampton argues no standing absent injury from pre-enactment residence. | Moore has standing against both laws. |
| Pullman abstention applicability | State preemption claim uncertain and could render federal issues moot. | abstention warranted if state law unclear and controls federal issues. | Pullman abstention denied; state law issue not prerequisite. |
| Pendent jurisdiction over state preemption | State preemption claim arises from same facts and should be decided with federal claims. | Court should abstain or dismiss pendent state claim. | Court exercises pendent jurisdiction over preemption issue. |
| Preemption of local laws by NYS law (SORA) | SORA preempts local residency restrictions. | State preemption is established by New York law and precedents. | Court will address state preemption first; motion to formally seek summary judgment injunctive relief required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper v. U.S. Postal Serv., 577 F.3d 479 (2d Cir. 2009) (standing requirements; injury-in-fact and redressability)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (injury-in-fact concrete and particularized)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (two-step pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaint)
- City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999) (loitering law vagueness concerns; guidance on constitutional limits)
- Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 213 U.S. 175 (1909) (controlling state issues pendent to federal questions)
- Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974) (preference for deciding state-law questions when dispositive)
- Canaday v. Koch, 608 F. Supp. 1460 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (illustrates nondependent resolution of federal claims when state issues dispositive)