ME- John Does lose bid for damages

Someone clearly does not understand "immunity" as the damages should never have been claimed. Hopefully their lawyers are able to carry the other claims to a win, but it is doubtful in today's climate.

11-4-2009 Maine:

AUGUSTA -- Twenty-one men who sued the state to try to overturn a law that says they must register as sex offenders lost their bid to get state officials to pay for damages the men said they suffered.

Justice Michaela Murphy issued a decision Friday dismissing the claims for damages against five district attorneys and the chief of the Maine State Police. All had been sued in their official capacities.

Some 41 plaintiffs, all using the pseudonym "John Doe," had sued the state, claiming that Maine's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 1999 was unconstitutional.

In the lawsuits, which are being handled in Kennebec County Superior Court, the John Does maintain that registration under the state's sex-offender law violates their constitutional rights and puts an additional criminal penalty on crimes committed up to 26 years ago.

They say they've lived lives free of sex-offense convictions for the past 16 to 26 years and ask why they are now viewed as threats to society.

The civil lawsuit began in 2006; new plaintiffs have been added over the past three years.

In the most recent decision, Murphy rejected the claim by 19 plaintiffs represented by attorney Jim Mitchell, who sought damages from District Attorneys Evert Fowle, Norman Croteau, Christopher Almy, Stephanie Anderson and Geoffrey Rushlau.

The damages were sought under the Maine Civil Rights Act and under Section 1983 of the federal code, which governs deprivation of rights.

Similar federal claims by two other John Does -- one represented by lawyer Walter McKee, and the other by lawyer Francis Griffin -- also were rejected.

The defendants -- all state, county and municipal officials represented by a number of attorneys and by assistant attorneys general -- argued that the state and federal acts "do not apply to state officials who are sued in their official capacity."

They also say that if the pleadings are amended to name the officials in their individual capacity, those individuals would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Murphy dismissed the claims for damages, saying the plaintiffs, "have failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted."

She reserved judgment on the doctrine of qualified immunity and on one John Doe's claim for attorney's fees if he succeeds in his claim for injunctive relief.

Mitchell said Tuesday he was not surprised with Murphy's latest ruling.

"The law says when they're officials doing their official job, they have immunity," Mitchell said.

He said 14 of the men he represents have been relieved of the registry requirement, but they continue to challenge the sex offender laws.

"There is a provision in the new law ... that says if they commit new crimes, even crimes unrelated to sexual offenses, that new crime can be combined with their sexual offense to put then back on the registry," he said. "That is still a retroactive use of the old crime. Another question remains as to whether we can get a declaration that the law under which we originally sued can be declared unconstitutional."

Mitchell said the plaintiffs are continuing their effort to seek legal fees.

Kate Simmons, assistant to the state attorney general, said Tuesday, "We're very pleased with Justice Murphy's decision to dismiss the damage claim."

In August, it appeared that 30 of the 41 people suing over the registry requirements would come off the list as a result of law changes that went into effect Sept. 12.

The changes affected people convicted of a sex offense between Jan. 1, 1982, and June 30, 1992, who have not had subsequent serious or sex-related offenses.

Most of those John Does continued their lawsuits to seek damages they say they suffered because they were forced to register. Those claims included lost jobs and other economic and emotional damage. ..Source.. by BETTY ADAMS