Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Coates v. Snyder
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
June 12, 2018
EMMANUEL SHAWN COATES, Plaintiff,
RICHARD SNYDER and KRISTIE ETUE, Defendants.
Robert J. Jonker J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Kent United States Magistrate Judge.
a pro se civil rights action brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Richard Snyder and
Kristie Etue. This matter is now before the Court on
defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15).
has filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief
against Michigan Governor Richard Snyder and (former)
Michigan State Police Director Kriste Etue. Plaintiff is a
convicted sex offender. The gist of plaintiff's claim is
that he is not bound by requirements of Michigan's Sex
Offender Registration Act (“SORA”), which was
enacted after his conviction. Plaintiff set forth the
following allegations (in his words):
10. On August 5, 1985, Plaintiff was sentenced to a prison
term of 9 to 15 years after pleading guilty to Third Degree
Criminal Sexual Conduct. MCL 750.520d. Berrien County Circuit
Court Docket No. 85-536-FC-H.
11. At the time of Plaintiff's conviction and sentence,
SORA was not in existence. SORA was enacted in 1994 and
became law on October l, 1995. See 1994 Mich. Pub. Act. 295.
12. Plaintiff was on parole when SORA became law, and
pursuant to the requirements of the act, Plaintiff's
parole agent registered him. See 1994 Mich. Pub. Act. 295,
13. The 1994 act, established a confidential database
containing Information about Michigan sex offenders and was
only available to law enforcement agencies.
14. Since the statute's 1994 enactment, it has been
amended numerous times and applied retroactively. See 1996
Mich. Pub. Act. 494; 1999 Mich. Pub. Act. 85; 2002 Mich.App.
Act. 542; 2004 Mich. Pub. Act. 235, 239, 240; 2005 Mich. Pub.
Act. 121, 127, 132; 2006 Mic. Pub. Act. 46; 2011 Mich. Pub.
Act. 17, 18, and 2013 Mich. Pub. Act. 149.
15. It is the 1994 act which took effect on October 1, 1995
that governs this action for Declaratory and Injunctive
16. In 2004, the amendment to SORA created a public
accessible website that published detailed personal
Information about Plaintiff. The [sic] ¶ 2006, SORA was
amended again to include geographic exclusion zones.
Prohibiting Plaintiff from working, living, or even
“loitering” within 1, 000 feet of a school.
Plaintiff's crime did not involve minors.
17. In 2011 SORA was once again amended and applied
retroactively to Plaintiff. The amendment classified
registrants into three Tiers, which determine the frequency
of reporting and length of registration. Based solely upon
the registrant's offense and without any individual risk
assessment. Plaintiff has been classified as Tier Three
registrant. Plaintiff's length of registration
requirement was extended from ten (10) years to lifetime.
Where before under the 1994 law, Plaintiff only had to
register for a period of ten (10) years if he was
incarcerated. Plaintiff violated parole in 1995, and was
sentence to a prison term of 17 to 50 years after his guilty
plea to assault with intent to murder. Undoubtedly, Plaintiff
was incarcerated for the 10 year period required by 1994
Mich. Pub. Act. 295. The Michigan Department of Corrections
registered Plaintiff for well over 10 years before his
release on parole on March 28, 2017.
18. Plaintiff's registration requirement under the 1994
act, expired in 2004 or no later than 2005.
19. Under the amendments to SORA, Plaintiff is required to
register quarterly and pay a $50.00 registration fee each
time he register. Plaintiff's next registration date is
December 2017. When under the 1994 act, Plaintiff was only
required to register one time and pay a one time $50.00
20. Plaintiff's Parole Agent James Plukas has informed
him that regardless of the United States Supreme Court
ruling, he still must comply with the registration act or be
subject to parole revocation and that Plaintiff must continue
to wear a GPS tether while on parole status.
Compl. (ECF No. 1, PageID.3-4).
seeks various forms of relief including:
a. Adjudge and decree that Defendants, by the systems,
policies, practices, and conditions described above, have
violated and continue to violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of
the United States Constitution;
b. Preliminary and permanently enjoin the Defendants from
requiring Plaintiff to register under the amendments to the
Michigan Sex ...
Buy This Entire Record For