DOE #1 et al v. MCCRORY et al
| JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, JOHN DOE #3, JOHN DOE #4 and JOHN DOE #5 |
| PAT MCCRORY, ROY A. COOPER, III, FRANK PARRISH, SETH EDWARDS, KIMBERLY ROBB, SCOTT THOMAS, ERNIE LEE, BEN DAVID, MELISSA PELFREY, VALERIE ASBELL, ROBERT EVANS, BRANSON VICKORY, SAM CURRIN, WALLACE BRADSHER, COLON WILLOUGHBY, JR., VERNON STEWART, SUSAN DOYLE, BILLY WEST, JON DAVID, LEON STANBACK, PAT NADOLSKI, JAMES WOODALL, JR., KRISTY NEWTON, JOHNSON BRITT, III, PHIL BERGER, JR., RICKY BOWMAN, DOUG HENDERSON, ROXANN VANEEKHOVEN, GARLAND YATES, BRANDY COOK, MAUREEN KRUEGER, REECE SAUNDERS, TREY ROBISON, JIM O'NEILL, SARAH KIRKMAN, GARRY FRANK, TOM HORNER, JERRY WILSON, JAY GAITHER, ANDREW MURRAY, LOCKE BELL, RICK SHAFFER, RONALD MOORE, BRAD GREENWAY, GREGORY A. NEWMAN and MICHAEL BONFOEY |
| 1:2013cv00711 |
| August 28, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| NCMD Office |
| Forsyth |
| JOE L. WEBSTER |
| JAMES A. BEATY |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
88
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE JAMES A. BEATY, JR. on 4/22/2016. Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, which was made orally at the March 24, 2016 status conference, is GRANTED. Specifically, Plaintiffs' Mo tion is GRANTED in that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.18 (a)(2) is declared unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. Therefore, Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 85 ) is DENIED. Defendant s are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing N.C. Gen. Stat § 14-208.18(a)(2) against Plaintiffs and all other persons similarly situated. Because all claims in this action are now resolved, a Judgment will be entered contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. (Daniel, J)
|
|
Filing
71
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER signed by JUDGE JAMES A. BEATY, JR on 12/07/2015. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment 52 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED insofar as N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.18(a)(3) is declared unconstitutionally vague on its face under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED with respect to their claim that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14 -208.18(a)(1) and (a)(2) are unconstitutionally vague and their claim that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.18(a)(2) is unconstitutionally overbroad. Plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED AS MOOT with respect to their claim that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-20 8.18(a)(3) is unconstitutionally overbroadbecause the Court has otherwise determined N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.18(a)(3) to be unconstitutional on vagueness grounds. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 49 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs' claim that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.18(a)(1) and (a)(2) are unconstitutionally vague. Defendants' Mot ion is DENIED both withrespect to Plaintiffs' claim that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.18(a)(3) is unconstitutionally vague and Plaintiffs' claim that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.18(a)(2) is unconstitutionally overbroad. Defendants' Motion is DENIED AS MOOT with respect to Plaintiffs' claim that N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14-208.18(a)(3) is unconstitutionally overbroad because the Court has otherwisedetermined N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.18(a)(3) to be unconstitutional on vagueness grounds. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from enforcing N.C. Gen. Stat § 14-208.18(a)(3) against Plaintiffs and all other persons similarly situated. (Coyne, Michelle)
|
|
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE JAMES A. BEATY, JR on 8/22/2014; that Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss and to Intervene as a Matter of Right [Doc. # 30 ] is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Defendants� 39; Amended Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' equal protection claim and procedural due process claims. Furthermore, Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is also GRANTED to t he extent that Plaintiffs attempt to bring an as-applied overbreadth claim, an overbreadth claim based on rights other than those of free speech and expression, and an overbreadth claim as to § 14-208.18(a)(1). However, Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is DENIED as to Plaintiffs' overbreadth challenge to § 14-208.18(a)(2) and § 14-208.18(a)(3) with regard to free speech and expression. Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is also DENIED as to Plaintiffs' vagueness challenge to all three subsections of § 14-208.18(a). In addition, for the reasons stated herein, Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(2) is DENIED. ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. # 17 ] is DENIED. (Sheets, Jamie)
|
|
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE JAMES A. BEATY, JR on 1/3/2014; For good cause shown, Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed Under Fictitious Names [Doc. # 5 ] is GRANTED; that: 1. All documents filed with the Court which contain the names o f Plaintiffs or information which identifies Plaintiffs or their family members, directly or indirectly, shall be filed under seal. In all publicly filed documents, Plaintiffs shall be identified only by their pseudonyms. 2. If requested to do so, Pl aintiffs' counsel shall disclose the names of Plaintiffs to counsel for Defendants. 3. Defense counsel may disclose the identities of Plaintiffs to the named defendants, their employees, and experts retained in this case, but only to the minimu m extent necessary to litigate this action. 4. Individuals to whom disclosure of Plaintiffs' identities is made shall not further disclose that information to any other person without first obtaining confirmation from Defendants' counsel t hat such disclosure is necessary to litigate this action. 5. Any person to whom disclosure is made as a result of this litigation shall first read this Order prior to having access to the identities of Plaintiffs. Counsel for Defendants shall ensure that all persons to whom disclosure is made pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 4 are aware of this Order. 6. Under no circumstances shall any person disclose Plaintiffs' names to the media without the consent of counsel for the Plaintiff whose name is to be disclosed. 7. If any specific issues related to non-disclosure of Plaintiffs' identities arise during the course of litigation, the parties shall seek to resolve those issues without court intervention. If the parties cannot agree, they shall seek further clarification from this Court. (Sheets, Jamie)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the North Carolina Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
