ACSOL: Amended Complaint Filed in SORNA Regulations Lawsuit
Source: ACSOL
An amended complaint was filed in federal district court yesterday in the lawsuit challenging SORNA regulations which became effective in January 2022. The amended complaint adds three plaintiffs using the pseudonyms “John Does 2, 3 and 4.” The amended complaint also includes the two original plaintiffs — John Doe 1 and ACSOL.
According to the amended complaint, John Does 1 through 3 are no longer required to register in the states in which they currently reside, however, they are required to register under SORNA. John Doe 4 is required to register in two states, the state where he was convicted and the state in which he currently resides.
The amended complaint includes four legal claims — two violations of the federal Administrative Procedures Act as well as a violation of the due process clause and First Amendment. These are the same legal claims stated in the original complaint.
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed both the original and amended complaints. The amended complaint was filed after a federal district court hearing held on September 26, during which the judge denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and granted PLF authority to file an amended complaint.
According to lead PLF attorney, Caleb Kruckenberg, a second motion for preliminary injunction will be filed next week. The hearing date for that motion could take place in late 2022 or early 2023.
Download the complaint:
Filed Amended Complaint – Oct 2022
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If you have not satisfied your duty to register under federal law, you cannot be considered for removal from Florida’s registry. See Fla. Stat. 943.0435(11)(a)3. I have satisfied my duty to register under federal law and have filed a civil complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against FDLE Commissioner Swearingen for removal from the Florida registry on grounds that the registry unconstitutionally infringes on my fundamental rights in violation of substantive due process under the Florida constitution.
The above may benefit from guidance from FAC Legal Committee. I don’t know whether it’s pro se, but we do want it to set good precedent, plus it appears to duplicate existing challenges funded through our Legal Fund.
Whenever I see comments such as ‘I have filed…’ on this forum, I have reactions such as the one above.
The civil complaint I filed is pro se. It is filed in State, not federal court. The complaint challenges violations of my State constitutional rights, not federal. All of my challenges have been pro se. My lifetime supervised release was terminated early because of my pro se filing. My federal duty to register as a Tier I offender under SORNA was terminated due to my pro se filing. So, I choose to fight for me and my family. If I lose and a bad precedent is set, so be it. My complaint is currently at the ‘motion to dismiss’ stage. Its been 5 months.
FAC Legal, you might consider weighing in on this. A positive outcome for Kyle could also be positive for many other families. A negative outcome, well, Kyle expressed it best.
We are in touch with Kyle, very closely.
Everyone realizes that a win would be very positive and could potentially be used to help others. A loss would be very negative and could potentially be used to hurt others.
As an organization, we discourage ProSe litigation that could impact future cases. ProSe bad precedent has constantly been thrown in the face of litigants who come behind them. If someone is intent on filing and cannot afford representation, everyone has the right to their day in court.
Kyle might also consider not discussing details of an open case in a public forum.
So your saying your a Tier 1 on the Feds leveling system and have gone 15 years since convection or 10 years with no arrest and now your suing Florida since they won’t grant consideration for removal?
If so please keep us updated since this could be useful to people. Also downside I see if you do win what is “consideration” seems kind of vague. Also was it a state or fed charge?
It was a federal charge. And no, I am not petitioning the State for “consideration” of removal from Florida’s registry. The civil complaint asserts an “as-applied” infringement of my State fundamental rights in violation of substantive due process under the Florida constitution. Under strict scrutiny analysis, my argument is that the least restrictive means for infringing on my fundamental rights under the Florida constitution would be to subject me to SORNA’s federal minimum requirements. Thus, since I have satisfied those requirements and the federal court has terminated my duty to register under federal law, the State must likewise do so in order to correct these constitutional infirmities.
The above legal argument strikes me as quite novel.
Pro Se works; keep fighting! Prayers for you.