Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-606 - Doe 1 et al v. Strange et al(JOINT ASSIGN)


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-606 - Doe 1 et al v. Strange et al(JOINT ASSIGN)
March 18, 2016
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that Defendants' 43 Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint or for More Definite Statement or to Strike is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as further set out in the opinion and order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 3/18/2016. (dmn, )
March 24, 2016
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 41 Motion to Proceed Anonymously is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiffs may withhold their true identities from the public and proceed with their claims as John Doe 1, John Doe 3, John Doe 7, and John Doe 9. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs' initial 2 Motion to Proceed Anonymously is DENIED as moot. The parties are DIRECTED to confer and, if possible, file a joint motion for protective order that satisfies Plaintiffs' confidentiality concerns. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 3/24/2016. (Attachments: # (1) Civil Appeals Checklist)(dmn, )
March 14, 2018
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. # 87) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is further ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Count 1. 2. Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Count 2. Count 2 is DISMISSED without prejudice. 3. Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to Count 3. The motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' claim that the residency restriction is unconstitutionally vague, Ala. Code 15-20A-11(a)(e), (g). The motion is also GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' vagueness challenge to the residency, employment, school, and internet reporting requirements, id. 15-20A-(a)(5)(9), (18), 15-20A-10(a)(c), (e). These portions of Count 3 are DISMISSED without prejudice. The motion is DENIED as to the claim that the employment restriction is unconstitutionally vague, id. 15-20A-13(b), (d), (f). 4. Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Count 4. 5. Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Count 5. 6. Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Count 6. Count 6 is DISMISSED without prejudice. 7. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc. # 118) and their Amended Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc. # 119) are DENIED at this time without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 3/14/2018. (kh, )