Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carmichael v. Oklahoma County District Court

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

May 17, 2019

THOMAS CARMICHAEL, Plaintiff,
v.
Oklahoma County District Court THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and Joe M. Allbaugh, as Director, and the CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, Defendants.

          ORDER

          TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is Defendant City of Oklahoma City's (“Oklahoma City”) Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 31]. Plaintiff has responded [Doc. No. 32]. The matter is fully briefed and at issue.

         UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

         Plaintiff has owned a residence at 2813 Shady Tree Lane in Oklahoma City since August 6, 1993. The residence is within 2000 feet of multiple common areas allegedly owned or operated by various homeowners associations (“HOA”). Plaintiff resided in the residence at 2813 Shady Tree Lane until his convictions and incarceration in May 2002.

         On May 15, 2002, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to charges of First Degree Rape, Indecent or Lewd Acts with A Child Under Sixteen, and Indecent Exposure. As a result of these convictions, Plaintiff is required to register as a convicted sex offender pursuant to the Oklahoma Sex Offenders Registration Act (“OSORA”), Okla. Stat. tit. 57, §§ 581-590.2.

         Plaintiff was discharged from prison and registered as a sex offender in January 2012. In March 2012, Plaintiff was charged with two counts of Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen and on August 7, 2015, he was convicted on those charges and sentenced to fourteen (14) years imprisonment, all but the first four years suspended, to run concurrent with his sentence for his previous convictions.

         On November 1, 2015, amendments to Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 590 became effective, which made it:

unlawful for any person registered pursuant to the Sex Offenders Registration Act to reside, either temporarily or permanently, within a two thousand-foot radius of any . . . playground or park that is established, operated or supported in whole or in part by a homeowners' association or a city, town, county, state, federal or tribal government, or a licensed child care center as defined by the Department of Human Services.

         Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 590(A). “Park” is defined in the statutes as “any outdoor public area specifically designated as being used for recreational purposes that is operated or supported in whole or in part by a homeowners' association or a city, town, county, state, federal or tribal governmental authority.”[1] Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1125. These are the same restrictions and definitions acknowledged by Plaintiff when he initialed each paragraph of, and signed, the Notice of Duty to Register prior to his release from incarceration in December 2016. Notice of Duty to Register (Pursuant to Title 57, Sections 581-590.2 and Title 21, Section 1125 of the Oklahoma State Statutes) [Doc. No. 31-6] at ¶¶ 9 and 10.

         On the day of his release, December 30, 2016, Plaintiff registered with the Oklahoma City Police Department as a transient and has continued to register as a transient since that date.

         Plaintiff filed the instant action on May 3, 2017, and Oklahoma City removed the case to this Court on August 14, 2017.

         STANDARD OF DECISION

         Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Winton, 818 F.3d 1103, 1105 (10th Cir. 2016). “An issue is ‘genuine' if there is sufficient evidence on each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way, ” and “[a]n issue of fact is ‘material' if under the substantive law it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim.” Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).

         The Court's inquiry must be whether the evidence, when viewed “through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden, ” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 254, “presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 251-52. Although the Court views all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party at the summary judgment stage, ‚Äúthere is no issue for trial unless there is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.