V; Hendricks, U. The Court need only determine if the Ordinance has a rational connection between the stated purpose and the restriction placed on convicted child sex offenders; a perfect fit between ends and means need not exist. This Court has already noted that the Ordinance rationally advances the government's interest in protecting children.
The Duarte Family, similar to A. On July 3,the Court entered a final judgment dismissing Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice [Dkt.
Plaintiffs did not contest any of Defendant's evidence. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant's Plaintiff has made no response to any of Defendant's evidentiary objections. City of Lewisville, F. Hendricks, U. In such cases, the Equal Protection Clause requires a rational means to serve a legitimate end.
Official policy is:. Josh Tom Gilroy Duarte further contends that there is a fact issue regarding whether the City's interest in protecting its children can be rationally connected to the residency restriction. Duarte modifies his contention and now argues that the Magistrate Judge must apply a three-factor test set forth in Mathews v.
The Magistrate Judge concluded, finding that A. Under the record presented here, similar to the Court in Doe v. Duarte allegedly spoke to Ms.
On June 5, , A. Click Here to Upload. What to Watch for Cosplay Inspiration. Duarte began contacting her in , and the records indicate that W. On October 23, , the Court dismissed W.