Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ORDER
Alabama law requires sex offenders to “obtain . . . and always have in [their]
possession, a valid driver license or identification card issued by the Alabama State
identify the licensee as a sex offender.” Id. § 15-20A-18(b)–(c). Last month, the
court found it was unconstitutional to require a sex offender’s ID card to bear the
inscription “CRIMINAL SEX OFFENDER” in bold, red letters. (Doc. # 164, at 22.)
as applied. (Doc. # 165, at 1–2.) The State of Alabama now moves to alter or amend
that judgment. (Doc. # 168.) But the State’s motion is due to be denied.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows parties to file a motion to alter
or amend the judgment. But “it is established beyond dispute that Rule 59(e) cannot
Case 2:15-cv-00606-WKW-SMD Document 173 Filed 03/15/19 Page 2 of 3
be used to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to
the entry of judgment.” Hamilton v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 793 F.3d 1261,
1266–67 (11th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). Instead, a Rule 59(e) motion can be granted
v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (cleaned up). For evidence to be new,
it must have been “unavailable at the time of the judgment.” Mincey v. Head, 206
F.3d 1106, 1137 n.69 (11th Cir. 2000); see Lopez v. AT&T, Corp., 457 F. App’x 872,
875 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam); Mays v. U.S. Postal Serv., 122 F.3d 43, 46 (11th
Cir. 1997).
The State bases its Rule 59(e) motion on what it claims is new evidence. (Doc.
# 168, at 4.) Specifically, the State introduces an agreement with the company that
prints ID cards for the State. The agreement shows that the State intends to replace
code. (Doc. # 171.) But this is not a sufficient basis for a Rule 59(e) motion. The
State has not found new evidence so much as it has changed its branded-ID policy.
Moreover, the State could have adopted its new policy long ago. The “CRIMINAL
SEX OFFENDER” inscription has been under attack for more than five years. See,
e.g., McGuire v. Strange, No. 11-cv-1027, Doc. # 171, at 31 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 7,
2014). This case started three-and-a-half years ago, and the First Amendment
2
Case 2:15-cv-00606-WKW-SMD Document 173 Filed 03/15/19 Page 3 of 3
motions to dismiss. (Doc. # 1, at 1; Doc. # 51, at 43–48; Doc. # 125, at 33–37.) The
State could have changed its policy at any time. Finally, just because the State
believes it has satisfied the court’s judgment does not mean that the court will amend
its judgment. Indeed, a ruling that the new ID cards are constitutional would
Serv. Org., Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 777 F.2d 598, 608 (11th Cir. 1985) (noting