Yunus v. Robinson

Equan Yunus, Sr., Plaintiff, v. J. Lewis Robinson et al., Defendants.

17-cv-5839 (AJN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

January 11, 2019

OPINION & ORDER

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:

Since 2016, Plaintiff has been required to register as a sex offender and has been subject to parole conditions designed to control the threat posed by sex offenders, including limitations on where he can live and travel, what websites he can access and what technology he can possess, and whether he can own a pet or rent a post office box. Plaintiff was even re-incarcerated for several months for possessing a smartphone and laptop. Report & Recommendation ("R & R"), Dkt. No. 79, at 61. Yet the record before the Court does not indicate that Plaintiff has ever committed any sexual misconduct. Instead, Plaintiff pled guilty to a crime—kidnapping of an unrelated minor under the age of 17—that automatically rendered him a sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act ("SORA"), N.Y. Correct. Law (CL) § 168-a. No evidence before the Court suggests that there was anything sexual about Plaintiff's crime, but rather that it was carried out to ransom the victim in exchange for money and drugs. At the state court hearing to determine his risk level classification as a sex offender, the judge found that there was "virtually no likelihood that [Plaintiff] will commit a sex crime ever." R & R at 10. Indeed, for the purposes of these two motions, Defendants have conceded that there was no sexual element to Plaintiff's offense.

Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that this situation violates several of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff argues that being forced to register as a sex offender violates his substantive and procedural due process rights, while a number of his specific conditions of parole violate his rights under the Due Process Clause and the First Amendment. Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction on some of his claims, while Defendants moved to dismiss his complaint in its entirety. These motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Moses for a Report and Recommendation. Judge Moses recommended that the Court grant a preliminary injunction on Plaintiff's claim that SORA, as applied to him, violates his right to substantive due process. Judge Moses also recommended granting Defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part.

For the reasons given below, the Court adopts Judge Moses' recommendation and grants Plaintiff a preliminary injunction on his substantive due process claim. The Court also grants Defendants' motion to dismiss as to several of Plaintiff's claims, including all of his claims for damages, while denying it as to his substantive due process claim, his challenges to his conditions of parole limiting where he can travel, his ability to seek alternate residences, his access to social media, what technology he can own and use, and his ability to interact with minor members of his family.

I. Background

The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the facts of this case and will rely on Judge Moses's thorough discussion of the factual and procedural history of this case in her Report and Recommendation to the Court. See R & R at 8-18. In short, Plaintiff pleaded guilty in 2002 to two counts of kidnapping for ransom under New York law. R & R at 9. One of the victims was a boy under seventeen years old who was not Plaintiff's child. R & R at 9. Under SORA, a conviction for kidnapping a minor who is not the kidnapper's child is designated as a"sex offense." N.Y. Correct. Law § 168-a(2)(a)(i). Plaintiff was classified a level one sex offender—the lowest possible level—at a SORA hearing following his term of incarceration. R & R at 10-11. However, there was no allegation of a sexual component to Plaintiff's crime and he has never been accused of committing any form of sexual misconduct. R & R at 9. Furthermore, at his SORA hearing, the presiding judge—Justice Obus, who had also presided over Plaintiff's sentencing in his underlying criminal case—found that there was virtually no likelihood that Plaintiff would ever commit a sex crime. R & R at 10, Plaintiff was released to parole on July 14, 2016, and numerous parole conditions were imposed, some mandatory and some discretionary. See R & R at 11-18 (outlining relevant parole conditions and modifications that have been made over time to those conditions).

On August 1, 2017, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint. Dkt. No. 2. Following the appearance of pro bono counsel for Plaintiff, he filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on March 26, 2018 and a Second Amended Complaint on March 29, 2018. See Mot. for PI, Dkt. No. 43; SAC, Dkt. No. 54. In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff challenges his designation as a sex offender on procedural due process and substantive due process grounds. SAC ¶¶ 139-51. He also challenges numerous specific conditions of his parole, arguing that they are void for vagueness, SAC ¶¶ 152-58, violate his First Amendment rights, SAC ¶¶ 159-63, violate his due process right by interfering with his family relations, SAC ¶¶ 164-69, and impose conditions that are arbitrary and capricious, SAC ¶¶ 170-75. The Court referred the motion for a preliminary injunction to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for a Report and Recommendation. Dkt. No. 51.

On April 17, 2018, the Defendants in this action filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Def. Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 59. The Court referred consideration ofthis motion to Judge Moses as well. Dkt. No. 62. On June 29, 2018, Judge Moses filed her Report recommending resolution of Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and Defendants' motion to dismiss. See R & R at 84-86. On July 20, 2018, both parties timely filed their objections to the Report, Pl. R & R Obj., Dkt. No. 85; Def. R & R Obj., Dkt. No. 86, and responded to one another's objections, Def. R & R Obj. Resp., Dkt. No. 93, Pl. R & R Obj. Resp., Dkt. No. 94. After having reviewed Judge Moses's Report and the parties' objections, the Court requested supplemental briefing on (1) whether preclusion doctrines barred some of Plaintiff's claims and (2) whether Defendants had waived any preclusion arguments by failing to raise them in the first instance before Judge Moses. Dkt. No. 98. The parties provided briefing, Def. Supp. Br., Dkt. No. 101; Pl. Supp. Br., Dkt. No. 102, and the Court held oral argument on October 3, 2018.

II. Legal Standards

A. Review of Objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report

A court may "designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition" of certain motions, including motions for injunctive relief and motions to dismiss. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). A party to the action may file objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. Id. § 636(b)(1)(C). Specific objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation are reviewed de novo. See, e.g., Amadasu v. Ngai, No. 05-CV-2585(RRM), 2012 WL 3930386, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2012). Where a party does not object, or simply makes "conclusory or general objections," the district court will review for clear error. Id. (citing cases). Under this standard, portions of the report to which no objections were made will be accepted unless they are "facially erroneous." Bryant v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 146 F.Supp.2d 422, 424-25 (S.D.N.Y.2001); see also DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F.Supp. 2d 333, 339-40 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ("A decision is 'clearly erroneous' when the Court is, 'upon review of the entire record, [ ] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Snow, 462 F.3d 55, 72 (2d Cir.2006)).

B. Preliminary Injunction Standard

"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right." Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). A court may issue a preliminary injunction only "upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief." Id. at 22. Ordinarily, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must make one of two showings: First, he may "show that he is likely to succeed on the merits; that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and that an injunction is in the public interest." ACLU v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787, 825 (2d Cir. 2015). Alternatively, he "may show irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or 'sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the party requesting the preliminary relief.'" Id. (quoting Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holdings, Inc., 696 F.3d 206, 215 (2d Cir. 2012)). However, if "the moving party seeks to stay government action taken in the public interest pursuant to a statutory or regulatory scheme, the district court should not apply the less rigorous fair-ground-for-litigation standard and should not grant the injunction unless the moving party establishes, along with irreparable injury, a likelihood that he will succeed on the merits of his claim." Able v. United States, 44 F.3d 128, 131 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Plaza Health Labs., Inc. v. Perales, 878 F.2d 577, 580 (2d Cir. 1989)). When the moving party seeks a mandatory injunction, "'[t]he moving party must make a clear or substantial showing of alikelihood of success' on the merits, a standard especially appropriate when a preliminary injunction is sought against government." D.D. ex rel. V.D. v. N.Y. Bd. Of Educ., 465 F.3d 503, 510 (2d Cir. 2006) (alteration in original) (quoting Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 473 (2d Cir. 1996)).

C. Motion to Dismiss

A case is properly dismissed for...