M.G. v. Towns
- P. Castel
- 1:24-cv-04051
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In M.G. v. Towns, Judge Castel received plaintiffs’ letter opposing dismissal and requesting expedited discovery and a preliminary-injunction schedule; no ruling appears.
The filing concerns M.G., B.Z., J.L., J.M., the other plaintiffs and putative class members described in the complaint, and the defendants involved in enforcing the challenged restriction.
What happened
M.G. v. Towns is a putative class action challenging New York’s 1,000-foot geographic restriction for certain people under supervision. In their letter, the plaintiffs opposed the defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss and asked for limited expedited discovery.
The plaintiffs argued that the restriction is unconstitutionally vague because it does not clearly explain where they may travel or live and gives parole officers too much enforcement discretion. They also argued that the restriction lacks a rational basis and that immunity does not bar their request to stop enforcement.
The letter asked Judge Castel to hold a premotion conference, allow limited expedited discovery, and set a combined schedule for a preliminary-injunction motion and the anticipated dismissal motion. The provided text does not contain a court ruling or disposition.
The detailed version
- M.G. v. Towns · No. 1:24-cv-04051
- P. Castel
- Aug. 29, 2024
What the document is
The provided text is a letter from attorneys for the plaintiffs, dated August 28, 2024, responding to the defendants’ request for a premotion conference about an anticipated motion to dismiss. The supplied case metadata lists the filing date as August 29, 2024. The text does not contain an order or a decision by the court.
Background
The plaintiffs describe the case as a putative class action challenging New York Executive Law § 259-c (14)’s 1,000-foot geographic restriction, also called “SARA.” According to the letter, the restriction affects where the plaintiffs may travel and reside. The plaintiffs state that M.G., B.Z., and J.L. have been unable to find housing because they cannot determine which homes comply with the restriction. They also describe allegations involving J.M.’s uncertainty about whether he may travel through particular areas.
Plaintiffs’ arguments
The plaintiffs argued that SARA is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment in its application to movement. They relied on an earlier related proceeding in which a court found that the restriction could cover broad areas, including innocent conduct, and could give parole officers extensive discretion. The plaintiffs also argued that the restriction fails to give adequate notice because it does not explain how certain locations should be treated when only part of a structure or area falls within the 1,000-foot zone.
The plaintiffs separately argued that SARA is unconstitutionally vague as applied to residences. They claimed that the method used to determine whether a residence complies with the restriction includes subjective visual inspections in addition to a computer program called CIRIS. In their view, this process does not provide clear standards and can result in people being approved for housing that is later treated as noncompliant.
The plaintiffs further argued that they had pleaded enough facts to support a claim that SARA lacks a rational basis. They cited alleged empirical research about geographic restrictions and argued that the law applies broadly to people who did not sexually offend against minors, including people whose offenses did not involve minors who were strangers to them. The plaintiffs also disputed the defendants’ anticipated assertion of quasi-judicial immunity, arguing that immunity does not bar a request to enjoin enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional statute.
Requests and status
The plaintiffs agreed that a premotion conference was necessary. They asked the court to grant limited expedited discovery in support of an anticipated preliminary-injunction motion and to adopt their proposed combined briefing schedule for that motion and the anticipated motion to dismiss. They stated that they were not seeking permission to amend the complaint at that time. The provided text does not state that Judge Castel granted or denied any request, ruled on the anticipated motion to dismiss, or otherwise disposed of the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.