1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MARCUS BARNES, et al.,

 

 Plaintiffs,

 

 v.

ROB JEFFREYS,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 No. 20 C 2137

 Judge Virginia M. Kendall

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Approximately 1,200 inmates imprisoned in the Illinois Department of 

Corrections (“IDOC”) who have completed their court-ordered sentences of 

incarceration and are entitled to release to a community setting on mandatory 

supervised release (“MSR”) remain in prison because they are unable to secure an 

approved “host site” to live while on mandatory supervised release. Title 730 ILCS 

5/3-3-7(a)(7.6), a section of the Illinois Uniform Code of Corrections, prohibits an 

individual on mandatory supervised release for a sex offense from living “at the same 

address or in the same condominium unit or apartment unit or in the same 

condominium complex or apartment complex with another person he or she knows or 

reasonably should know is a convicted sex offender or has been placed on supervision 

for a sex offense.” (hereinafter the “One-Per-Address Statute”). 

Plaintiff Marcus Barnes was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for criminal 

sexual assault in 2008. Upon completing his sentence, Barnes was entitled to start 

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 1 of 27 PageID #:615
2

his term of mandatory supervised release (“MSR”), a form of post-confinement 

monitoring intended to assist individuals transition from prison to liberty. Under the 

“One-Per-Address Statute” convicted sex offenders on MSR may not live in the same 

building as another registered sex offender. Because he was unable to secure housing 

which complied with the One-Per-Address Statute, Barnes spent an additional 18 

months imprisoned at the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”).

Barnes, and a class of similarly situated plaintiffs, challenges the 

constitutionality of the One-Per-Address Statute on Eighth Amendment and 

Fourteenth Amendment grounds. In Murphy et al. v. Raoul et al., No. 1:16-cv11471—a related case brought by the narrower class of convicted sex offenders 

sentenced to an indeterminate term of MSR—this Court identified a protectable 

liberty interest in release from prison onto MSR once eligible and awarded the class 

summary judgment as to their Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment 

equal protection claims.

Plaintiffs in the present suit move for summary judgment on all their claims

against Defendant Robert Jeffreys, Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections 

(“IDOC”). For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 

32) is granted as to both their Eighth Amendment (Count I) and Fourteenth 

Amendment equal protection claims (Count II) but denied as to their Fourteenth 

Amendment substantive due process claim.

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 2 of 27 PageID #:616
3

BACKGROUND

I. The One-Per-Address Statute

In Illinois, almost every criminal sentence includes a period of MSR following 

the term of imprisonment. See 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-15(c). Authority over MSR is vested 

in both the IDOC and the Prisoner Review Board (“PRB”). See Cordrey v. Prisoner 

Review Bd., 21 N.E.3d 423, 428 (Ill. 2014). Broadly, the PRB is responsible for setting 

the conditions of MSR, but the IDOC assists inmates locating a suitable “host site” 

for residential placement. See id. at 430.

The One-Per-Address Statute precludes convicted sex offenders on MSR from 

living “at the same address or in the same condominium unit or apartment unit in 

the same condominium complex or apartment complex with another person he or she 

knows or reasonably should know is a convicted sex offender or has been placed on 

supervision for a sex offense[.]” 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(a)(7.6). The One-Per-Address 

Statute is a mandatory condition, meaning neither the IDOC nor the PRB has the 

discretion to impose the condition. 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(a)(7.6). Until April 7, 2020, the 

IDOC interpreted the One-Per-Address Statute to prohibit sex offenders on MSR 

from living in the same trailer parks as other sex offenders or from living in adjacent 

apartment buildings. Id. (Dkt. 50 ¶ 2). When evaluating proposed host sites, a 

parole agent verifies compliance with the One-Per-Address Statute. (Dkt. 50 ¶ 1). If 

a host site is denied, the offender is notified in writing of the reason for the denial 

and afforded the opportunity to file a grievance. (Dkt. 50 ¶ 3). Sex offenders on MSR 

must register with the local police department and, in the past, local registering 

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 3 of 27 PageID #:617
4

agencies have occasionally refused to register sex offenders at sites which violate the 

One-Per-Address Statute or rearrested them for living at such locations. (Dkt. 50 

¶¶ 7–8, 10). Once a host site is approved and the sex offender moves in, a parole 

agent conducts monthly checks to ensure the host site remains compliant with the 

One-Per-Address Statute. (Dkt. 50 ¶ 5). If the parole agent determines the host site 

violates the One-Per-Address Statute, he provides the sex offender written notice of 

the need to find a new host site. (Dkt. 50 ¶ 6). The IDOC will only reincarcerate a 

sex offender for a violation of the One-Per-Address Statute to keep local authorities 

from arresting the offender on the new charge of failure to register. (Dkt. 50 ¶ 12).

When questioned at his deposition in Murphy as to the basis of the IDOC’s 

previous application of the One-Per-Address Statute to trailer parks, Dion Dixon, the 

IDOC’s Deputy Chief of Parole, did not reference any safety or rehabilitative purpose. 

(Dkt. 33 ¶ 1). Instead, Dixon said registering entities and the state police understood 

the One-Per-Address Statute to prohibit a sex offender on MSR from living in the 

same trailer park as another registrant. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 1; Dkt. 49 ¶ 1; Dkt. 34-6 at 3–5). 

Because allowing sex offenders on MSR to live in the same trailer park as another 

registrant might prove counterproductive or result in reincarceration, the IDOC 

similarly refused to permit such placements. (Dkt. 49 ¶ 1; Dkt. 34-6 at 6). Subject to 

the permanent injunction ordered in Murphy, the IDOC altered the way it interprets 

the One-Per-Address Statute. No. 16-cv-11471, Dkt. 161. 

A study produced by the Minnesota Department of Corrections examined the 

impact of permitting convicted sex offenders to live “in close proximity to one 

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 4 of 27 PageID #:618
5

another.” (Dkt. 33 ¶ 2). The report found no negative effects from such close living 

and, instead, identified a handful of benefits. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 2). For example, the reduced 

travel time between offenders affords closer supervision of registrants, more visits 

per registrant, and registrants tend to inform on one another for restriction violations 

or crimes. (Dkt. 32 ¶ 2). These findings are consistent with the deposition testimony 

of Bob McKelvey, the founder of NewDay Apartments. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 7).

II. Other Restrictions

Separate and apart from the One-Per-Address Statute, host sites for sex 

offenders on MSR are subject to myriad other restrictions. For example, it is a crime 

for child sex offenders to “knowingly reside within 500 feet of a school building” or 

“playground, child care institution, day care center, party day child care facility, day 

care home, group day care home, or a facility providing programs or services 

exclusively directed towards [children].” 720 ILCS 5/11-9.3(b.5), (b.10). Registered 

sex offenders are further restricted from living “near . . . parks, schools, day care 

centers, swimming pools, beaches, theaters, or any other places where minor children 

congregate” without preapproval by the IDOC. 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(b-1)(12). Finally, 

until April 7, 2020, IDOC policy would not approve a host site with computers, 

routers, wi-fi access, smart TVs or other internet-related devices, where children lived 

or resided, or without a land-line telephone. Murphy, No. 16-cv-11471, Dkt. 161.

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 5 of 27 PageID #:619
6

III. Housing Availability

A. NewDay Apartments

NewDay Apartments (“NewDay”), located in Lake County, Illinois, specializes 

in providing compliant housing to registered sex offenders. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 3). Bob 

McKelvey, the founder of NewDay, views its primary purpose as keeping 

“communities safe by housing registrants responsibly.” (Dkt. 33 ¶ 12). NewDay has

a 0% recidivism rate among its registrant tenants. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 12).

NewDay currently owns eight properties which comply with the various 

statutory prohibitions on sex offender host sites and has plans to expand its holdings 

over the next three years. (Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 4, 11). NewDay contracts with the IDOC to 

make four of these properties available to house indigent members of the Murphy

class otherwise unable to procure housing. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 4). Prior to the Court’s Order 

granting preliminary injunctive relief in Murphy, NewDay was limited to housing a 

single registrant per location. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 5). NewDay also owns multi-unit properties 

which, under the One-Per-Address Statute, are limited to registrants off MSR. (Dkt. 

33 ¶ 12). Permitting multiple registrants on MSR would “easily double” the number 

of units NewDay could offer and would make the housing more affordable. (Dkt. 33 

¶ 12). Several registrants have been released to NewDay on preliminary injunction. 

(Dkt. 68).

B. Wayside Cross Ministries

Wayside Cross Ministries (“Wayside”), located at 215 E. New York Street, 

Aurora, Illinois, is a “Bible-based residential program” with over 90 years of 

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 6 of 27 PageID #:620
7

experience. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 13). Its Master’s Touch Ministry program targets men 

struggling with drug and alcohol addiction and transitioning after a period of 

incarceration for sex offenses. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 13). The program takes a minimum of seven 

months to complete and is highly structured with a strict code of conduct. (Dkt. 33 

¶¶ 15–16). Program participants are subject to a curfew, required to attend 

scheduled Bible study and church services, prohibited from using drugs or alcohol, 

not allowed to use profane or abusive language, limited to listening to music that 

glorifies God, and only allowed to use technology in “a manner that conforms to God’s 

high standards.” (Dkt. 33 ¶ 16). Participants may only complete the program by 

successfully completing random drug and alcohol tests, actively participating in 

programming, and adhering to the program’s rules. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 16).

Program participants live together in a dormitory and are provided free room 

and board. (Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 17–18). The Master’s Touch Ministry program is willing to 

accept registrants on MSR from the IDOC and several have been admitted to the 

program on preliminary injunction. (Dkt. 22; Dkt. 33 ¶ 19).

C. Pastor James Cockrell

James Cockrell, a pastor with Abundant Faith Ministries in Springfield, 

Illinois, with experience ministering to convicted sex offenders imprisoned in the 

IDOC, owns and oversees a house at 1611 E. Matheny Avenue, Springfield, Illinois. 

(Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 20–21). Cockrell intends to provide housing and supportive services to, 

among others, convicted sex offenders. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 21). Cockrell will offer one month 

rent-free and help finding employment and housing. (Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 22–23). Cockrell 

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 7 of 27 PageID #:621
8

has a relationship with a local employer open to hiring convicted sex offenders and 

which will provide a shuttle service to residence to and from work. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 22). 

Cockrell is willing to accept convicted sex offenders on MSR. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 25).

D. New Beginnings Recovery Homes, Inc.

New Beginnings Recovery Homes, Inc. (“New Beginnings”) is a not-for-profit 

that provides affordable shared transitional housing and case management services 

to those newly released from prison. (Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 27–28). New Beginnings targets 

those experiencing housing or food insecurity, lacking gainful employment, or 

recovering from drug or alcohol addiction and has significant experience helping 

convicted sex offenders successfully transition back into the community. (Dkt. 33 

¶¶ 28, 31). New Beginnings has five buildings on the south side of Chicago compliant 

with housing restrictions applicable to convicted sex offenders where residents live in 

a dormitory or semi-private shared living setting. (Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 29–30). New 

Beginnings residents receive meals and have access to services such as peer support 

groups, counseling with licensed providers, case management, and 24-hour security. 

(Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 29, 31). Residents must adhere to New Beginning’s rules, which include 

a curfew, abstinence from drugs and alcohol, and no minors or women on the 

premises. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 32). New Beginnings is willing to accept registrants on MSR 

from the IDOC and several have been released to New Beginnings on preliminary 

injunction. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 34; Dkt. 52; Dkt. 60; Dkt. 64).

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 8 of 27 PageID #:622
9

IV. Class Members

A. Luis Aponte

Luis Aponte was released from the IDOC on MSR in January 2020 to his 

father’s home in a four-story apartment building with approximately 12 units. (Dkt. 

33 ¶ 45). Aponte is doing well on MSR and has a full-time job in a warehouse and 

has been regularly attending his required sex offender therapy. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 47). In 

March 2020, another registrant off MSR moved into a different unit in the same 

building where Aponte’s father lives. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 48). Aponte’s parole agent notified 

him that, because the One-Per-Address Statute prohibits him from living in the same 

building as another registrant, he needed to find another host site or return to prison. 

(Dkt. 33 ¶ 48). Aponte has not been able to find alternate living accommodations and

wishes to continue living with his father. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 49).

B. Marcus Barnes

Marcus Barnes completed his prison sentence on December 17, 2018, at which 

point he was approved for release on MSR. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 35). Barnes’s family identified 

11 potential host sites, all of which were rejected for various reasons by the IDOC. 

(Dkt. 33 ¶ 35). Among the potential host sites was a building owned by Jordan’s 

Dream, which provides transitional housing and supportive services to convicted sex 

offenders. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 36). The IDOC rejected this site under the One-Per-Address 

Statute because another registrant lived there. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 37). Barnes spent more 

than 18 months of “dead time” in prison after the completion of his sentence of 

incarceration because of his inability to find an acceptable host site. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 35). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 9 of 27 PageID #:623
10

Barnes was released to Jordan’s Dream on April 14, 2020, on preliminary injunction. 

(Dkt. 11).

C. Fredrick Chamblis

Fredrick Chamblis was convicted of criminal sexual assault in 2012 and 

sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and three-years-to-life of MSR. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 61). 

Chamblis completed his sentence of incarceration on January 22, 2016, at which point 

he was eligible for release on MSR. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 61). Chamblis could not afford 

independent housing and the IDOC rejected all potential residences with family 

members as host sites and, therefore, Chamblis was not released from the IDOC at 

that time. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 61). Chamblis was released on preliminary injunction to 

Wayside Cross Ministries on May 19, 2020, more than four years after he became 

eligible for MSR. (Dkt. 22; Dkt. 33 ¶ 62).

D. Corey Crowe

Corey Crowe was convicted of criminal sexual assault in 2013 and sentenced 

to six years’ imprisonment followed by three-years-to-life of MSR. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 64). 

Crowe became eligible for MSR on June 5, 2018, but remained imprisoned for almost 

two years due to his inability to find or afford a suitable host site. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 65). 

Crow was released to Wayside Cross Ministries on May 19, 2020, on preliminary

injunction. (Dkt. 22; Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 65–66).

E. Jerry Davis

Jerry Davis was convicted of criminal sexual assault in 2006 and sentenced to 

four years’ imprisonment followed by thee-years-to-life MSR. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 67). Davis 

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 10 of 27 PageID #:624
11

became eligible for MSR on December 30, 2008, but was not released at this point 

because he was unable to locate a host site. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 67). In June 2016, Davis was 

released to Hand-n-Hand Outreach, a transitional housing provider, where he lived 

for a year and a half. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 68). While on MSR, Davis was employed and was 

enrolled in school. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 68). When Davis lost his placement at Hand-n-Hand 

in November 2017, he was returned to prison where he remained until he was 

released to NewDay in December 2019. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 68). Davis is employed in a 

warehouse and seeking independent housing. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 69). In total, Davis served 

ten years of “dead time.” (Dkt. 33 ¶ 68).

F. Ronald Garrison

Ronald Garrison was convicted of predatory criminal sexual assault in 2009 

and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment followed by three years of MSR. (Dkt. 33 

¶ 73). Garrison completed his prison sentence on March 6, 2019, at which point he 

became eligible for MSR but remained imprisoned because he was unable to secure a 

host site. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 73). With financial assistance from his mother and a friend, 

Garrison was released to New Beginnings on June 12, 2020, after serving 15 months’ 

“dead time.” (Dkt. 33 ¶ 73).

G. Alvin Goldberg

Alvin Goldberg is 81-years-old and currently incarcerated at Taylorville 

Correctional Center. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 8). Although he completed his prison sentence on 

November 11, 2018, at which point he became eligible for MSR, he has been unable 

to secure an appropriate host site and remains imprisoned. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 8). Goldberg 

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 11 of 27 PageID #:625
12

is able to pay for an apartment at NewDay and is on the waiting list for a unit. (Dkt. 

33 ¶ 10). Goldberg has spent more than 18 months of “dead time” in prison. (Dkt. 33 

¶ 9).

H. Joshua Huddleston

Joshua Huddleston was convicted of predatory criminal sexual assault in 2013 

and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment followed by three-years-to-life MSR. (Dkt. 

33 ¶ 70). Huddleston completed his prison sentence on January 22, 2019, at which 

point he became entitled to MSR but remained imprisoned because he was unable to 

secure a host site. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 70). While Huddleston is financially able to afford 

housing, he does not have family who could either offer him accommodations or assist 

him finding housing and he was unable to search for housing, sign a lease, or set up 

utilities while imprisoned. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 71). Huddleston was released to New 

Beginnings on June 8, 2020, after spending 16 months “dead time” in prison. (Dkt. 

33 ¶¶ 71–72).

I. J.D. Lindenmeier and Stanley Meyer

J.D. Lindenmeier and Stanley Meyer are convicted sex offenders on MSR who 

wish to rent an apartment together once they secure jobs. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 42). 

Lindenmeier and Meyer wish to share living expenses such as rent and utilities. 

(Dkt. 33 ¶ 42). Meyer would have trouble affording an apartment on his own. (Dkt. 

33 ¶ 43).

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 12 of 27 PageID #:626
13

J. Kevin Manson

Kevin Manson was released on MSR on May 6, 2020, to live with his aunt. 

(Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 50–51). The IDOC rescinded its approval of Manson’s aunt’s house as a 

host site based on its proximity to a school. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 51). Because Manson was 

unable to pay for housing on his own, The Cook County Justice Advisory Council 

assisted him with financing housing at New Beginnings to which Manson was 

released on preliminary injunction. (Dkt. 29; Dkt. 33 ¶ 52).

K. John Margarella

John Margarella completed his sentence in December 2013, at which point he 

was entitled to MSR. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 58). Because Margarella is indigent and his family 

could neither house him nor afford separate accommodations, Margarella remained 

imprisoned. (Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 57–58). Margarella was released on preliminary injunction 

to NewDay on June 23, 2020, after serving six years of “dead time.” (Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 58, 

60).

L. Dana Monson

Dana Monson completed his sentence on March 25, 2012, at which point he 

was entitled to MSR. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 54). Monson is indigent and does not have family 

who can assist him with money or housing. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 53). On May 20, 2020, Monson 

was released to Wayside Cross Ministries on preliminary injunction after spending 

more than eight years of “dead time.” (Dkt. 22; Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 54, 56).

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 13 of 27 PageID #:627
14

M. Thomas Smith

Thomas Smith was sentenced to three-years-to-life MSR and wished to live 

with his mother and stepfather. (Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 38–39). Smith’s parents have a threebedroom home where he would have his own bedroom and bathroom. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 39). 

The IDOC rejected Smith’s parents’ house as a host site because his stepfather was 

convicted of a sex offense in 1986 and the One-Per-Address Statute prohibits Smith 

from living in the same house as a convicted sex offender. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 40). Smith was 

released on preliminary injunction on September 11, 2020. (Dkt. 60).

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is proper when “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); see, e.g., Reed v. Columbia St. Mary’s Hosp., 915 F.3d 473, 

485 (7th Cir. 2019). The parties genuinely dispute a material fact when “‘the evidence 

is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party’.” 

Daugherty v. Page, 906 F.3d 606, 609–10 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty 

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). The Court “consider[s] all of the evidence in 

the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Skiba v. Ill. Centr. 

R.R. Co., 884 F.3d 708, 717 (7th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). “Rule 56 ‘mandates the 

entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, 

against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an 

element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden 

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 14 of 27 PageID #:628
15

of proof at trial.’” Zander v. Orlich, 907 F.3d 956, 959 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Celotex 

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on three grounds, arguing that the 

challenged scheme violates the Eighth Amendment (Count I) and substantive due 

process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment (Count II). As a 

threshold matter, the parties dispute whether an independent civil suit under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 or a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the 

appropriate vehicle for these constitutional claims.

I. § 1984 vs. § 2254

Defendant argues Plaintiffs’ claims must be brought under § 2254 because they 

ultimately challenge a restriction on their post-incarceration life. (Dkt. 48 at 6); see 

also Williams v. Wisconsin, 336 F.3d 576, 579 (7th Cir. 2003) (“Challenges to 

conditions of confinement . . . fall under § 1983. Attacks on the fact or duration of 

confinement come under § 2254. For parolees . . . the ‘conditions’ of parole are the 

confinement.”). This is the same argument raised and rejected both on motion to 

dismiss and summary judgment in Murphy. See 380 F. Supp. 3d at 750–52. The 

Court again rejects this argument.

Plaintiffs challenge neither their convictions nor their sentences, including 

their MSR terms. Instead, Plaintiffs challenge the procedures used in host site 

review. (Dkt. 24-1 ¶¶ 2, 4, 7, 95–100); see Richmond v. Scibana, 387 F.3d 602, 606 

(7th Cir. 2004) (“[A] challenge to the rules that affect placement in community 

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 15 of 27 PageID #:629
16

confinement [shall be treated] the same way as rules that affect placement in parole 

systems.”). The One-Per-Address Statute “in no way affects the duration, much less 

the fact, of confinement” and, absent the statutory limitation, “supervised release will 

still be in place, and it will last just as long.” Bunn v. Conley, 309 F.3d 1002, 1007–

08 (7th Cir. 2002). Even were Defendant’s framing of the issue as prison versus 

supervised release correct, Plaintiffs’ claims are nonetheless appropriate under 

§ 1983 as they do not request early release. Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 652 

(7th Cir. 2000) (explaining that § 1983 is the appropriate vehicle for prisoners who do 

not demand early release but contest the procedures used to make those 

determinations). Plaintiffs’ claims are proper under § 1983.

II. Eighth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment restricts the government’s power to punish criminal 

offenders, including imposing “substantive limits on what can be made criminal and 

punished as such.” Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 667 (1977) (citing Robinson v. 

California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)). Criminal laws may punish conduct but may not 

punish status. See generally Powell v. State of Tex., 392 U.S. 514 (1968); Robinson, 

370 U.S. 660. The Eighth Amendment proscription against punishing status includes 

both criminalizing an individual’s status itself as well as an individual’s involuntary 

conduct otherwise inseparable from his status. See Murphy, 380 F. Supp. 3d at 763 

(collecting cases). In Count I, Plaintiffs claim Defendant’s application of the One-PerAddress Statute violates their Eighth Amendment rights because it penalizes their 

homeless and indigent status. (Dkt. 24-1 ¶¶ 95–98; Dkt. 32 at 30).

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 16 of 27 PageID #:630
17

Convicted sex offenders must secure a qualifying host site at which to reside 

before being released on MSR and the IDOC has the discretion to approve or reject 

the proposed site. See Murphy, 380 F. Supp. 3d at 764. Indigent and homeless 

convicted sex offenders face a virtually insurmountable obstacle in complying with 

the IDOC’s application of the One-Per-Address Statute. The undisputed evidence 

establishes Plaintiffs are indigent and their families and friends are unable to secure 

housing acceptable to the IDOC. (Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 8–10, 35–40, 42–43, 45–62, 64–73). 

Moreover, absent preliminary injunctive relief, affordable housing units and 

residential rehabilitative programs willing and capable of accepting sex offenders on 

MSR are not compliant with the IDOC’s application of the One-Per-Address Statute. 

(Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 3–5, 11–13, 15–23, 25, 27–32, 34). As a result, Plaintiffs are imprisoned 

beyond the terms of their sentences. (Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 9, 35, 54, 58, 62, 65, 68, 71, 73). 

Plaintiffs’ failure to procure an acceptable host site is involuntary conduct 

inseparable from their indigent or homeless status. Defendant’s application of the 

One-Per-Address Statute constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the 

Eighth Amendment.

As in Murphy, Defendant responds that the One-Per-Address Statute doesn’t 

criminalize status or involuntary conduct relating to homelessness in part because 

“there is no criminal charge here based on the offender’s mere status as homeless.” 

(Dkt. 48 at 15–17). The Eighth Amendment addresses punishment; it is not limited 

to a new indictment. C.f. Martin v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031, 1048 (9th Cir. 2018) 

(referring to “criminal penalties”); Diaz v. Lampela, 601 F. App’x 670, 675–76 (10th 

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 17 of 27 PageID #:631
18

Cir. 2015). Prolonged incarceration is a punishment under the Eighth Amendment. 

See, e.g., Murphy, 308 F. Supp. 3d at 764–65 (collecting cases). Here, Plaintiffs spent 

as long as 10 years in prison past their release date. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 68). The One-PerAddress Statute operates to keep indigent and homeless sex offenders incarcerated 

beyond their term of imprisonment and is unconstitutional under the Eighth

Amendment.

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim 

(Count I) is granted.

III. Fourteenth Amendment

A. Substantive Due Process

As an initial matter, Defendant argues Plaintiffs should be precluded from 

moving for summary judgment on their substantive due process claim because it was 

not pled in the Second Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 48 at 9). Defendant is correct 

Count II expressly brings a claim under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment and the Second Amended Complaint makes no mention of due process, 

substantive or otherwise. (Dkt. 24-1 ¶¶ 99–100). However, Plaintiffs are not 

required to plead legal theories and, when they do, may later alter those theories. 

Chessie Logistics Co. v. Krinos Holdings, Inc., 867 F.3d 852, 859 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing 

Vidimos, Inc. v. Laser Lab Ltd., 99 F.3d 217, 222 (7th Cir. 1996); CMFG Life Ins. Co. 

v. RBS Sec., Inc., 799 F.3d 729, 743–44 (7th Cir. 2015); Rabé v. United Air Lines, Inc., 

636 F.3d 866, 872 (7th Cir. 2011)). Courts should not hold plaintiffs to their earlier 

legal theories unless the changes unreasonably harm the defendant or the case’s 

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 18 of 27 PageID #:632
19

development by, for example, causing unreasonable delay or making it more “costly 

or difficult” to defend the case, or if the alteration amounts to a change in the factual 

theory. Chessie Logistics Co., 867 F.3d at 859 (citing Vidimos, Inc., 99 F.3d at 222; 

Whitaker v. Milwaukee County, 772 F.3d 802, 808–09 (7th Cir. 2014)).

Plaintiffs’ newly added substantive due process claim does not alter the factual 

theory underpinning their suit. Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim alleges the 

One-Per-Address Statute impermissibly deprives convicted sex offenders of their 

liberty because it does not serve a government purpose. (Dkt. 32 at 23; Dkt. 53 at 9). 

This new legal theory relies upon the same facts as Plaintiffs’ other claims; namely, 

that the One-Per-Address Statute does not serve a public safety or rehabilitative 

purpose. Indeed, Defendant tacitly concedes this point by arguing Plaintiffs’ 

substantive due process claim is duplicative of their Eighth Amendment claim. (Dkt. 

48 at 10–11). Nor does allowing Plaintiffs to add a substantive due process theory at 

this stage hinder the progress of the case or unduly burden Defendant. Defendant 

did not articulate any way in which allowing the substantive due process claim to 

proceed disadvantages him and the Court can identify none.

However, Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim is duplicative of their 

Eighth Amendment claim. Despite Plaintiffs’ attempts to distinguish these causes of 

action based on the cross-section of convicted sex offenders to which they apply, both 

allege the One-Per-Address Statute acts to keep convicted sex offenders incarcerated 

beyond their terms of imprisonment. (Dkt. 53 at 8). While the Fourteenth 

Amendment and Eighth Amendment both limit the government’s authority to confine 

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 19 of 27 PageID #:633
20

a person, they are temporally distinct. See Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 

400–01 (2015). Although it is uncertain which applies to hybrid forms of detention,

like that at issue in the present suit, the Seventh Circuit analyzes instances of 

inmates incarcerated beyond their release date under the Eighth Amendment. See, 

e.g., Murphy, 380 F. Supp. 3d at 765 (collecting cases). Regardless, “the Eighth 

Amendment standard . . . is at least as difficult for a plaintiff to satisfy as the 

Fourteenth Amendment standard.” Estate of Clark v. Walker, 865 F.3d 544, 546 n.1 

(7th Cir. 2017), cert denied, 138 S. Ct. 1285 (2018).

Based on this understanding, the Court follows the Justices’ admonition that 

“[w]here a particular Amendment ‘provides an explicit textual source of 

constitutional protection’ against a particular sort of government behavior, ‘that 

Amendment, not the more generalized notion of ‘substantive due process,’ must be 

the guide for analyzing these claims.’” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994) 

(citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)); see Graham, 490 U.S. at 395 

n.10 (“After conviction, the Eighth Amendment ‘serves as the primary source of 

substantive protection . . .’ Any protection that ‘substantive due process’ affords 

convicted prisoners against excessive force is, we have held, at best redundant of that 

provided by the Eighth Amendment.”) (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 327 

(1986)). Because of this analytical redundancy, Plaintiffs’ claim is appropriately 

brought under the Eighth Amendment, not the Fourteenth Amendment.

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 20 of 27 PageID #:634
21

B. Equal Protection

The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the 

government from treating similarly situated persons differently. While a prisoner’s 

indigence does not generally call for equal protection analysis, the Supreme Court 

has at least twice invalidated facially neutral criminal laws that authorized the 

detention of poor individuals because of their indigence. See Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 

395, 397–99 (1971); Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 241–42 (1970). Plaintiffs’ 

Fourteenth Amendment claim is analyzed under the standard of scrutiny articulated 

in Turner v. Safley. 482 U.S. 78, 89–91 (1987); see, e.g., Murphy, 380 F. Supp. 3d at

752–54 (“Custody determinations, to the extent they fall within the ambit of the 

Fourteenth Amendment, come under the scope of Turner because they lie at the core 

of running a correctional system.”) (internal citations omitted). Turner holds that 

“when a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation 

is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Turner, 482 

U.S. at 89. In applying the Turner standard, courts consider (1) “whether there is a 

valid, rational connection between the regulation and the legitimate governmental 

interest put forward to justify it”; (2) whether alternative means of exercising the 

burdened constitutional right are available; (3) the impact accommodation of the 

asserted constitutional right will have on “the allocation of prison resources”; and 

(4) “the existence or absence of ready alternatives” to the challenged restriction. 

Turner, 482 U.S. at 89–91. Although all four factors are important, “the first one can 

act as a threshold factor regardless which way it cuts.” Riker v. Lemmon, 798 F.3d 

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 21 of 27 PageID #:635
22

546, 553 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Singer v. Raemisch, 593 F.3d 529, 534 (7th Cir. 

2010)).

As in Murphy, Defendant suggests the One-Per-Address Statute does not 

implicate the equal protection clause because it does not obligate Plaintiffs to pay a 

fee directly to the State. (Dkt. 48 at 14–15). However, the relevant question is 

whether indigent and homeless sex offenders remain incarcerated while non-indigent 

and non-homeless sex offenders are not solely because the former cannot afford 

housing outside prison while the latter can. See, e.g., Murphy, 380 F. Supp. 3d at 755. 

Plaintiffs maintain this is the case and, as applied, the One-Per-Address Statute 

treats wealthy sex offenders differently from those who are poor.

On its face, the One-Per-Address Statute applies equally to all convicted sex 

offenders. As applied, however, the opportunity for indigent or homeless sex 

offenders to procure release from confinement upon completing their term of 

incarceration is virtually nonexistent. As the undisputed and material evidence 

demonstrates, only those sex offenders with access to funds to pay for their own 

accommodations at an approved location will be free from incarceration. To 

illustrate, Fredrick Chamblis completed his sentence of incarceration for criminal 

sexual assault on January 22, 2016, and became eligible for release on MSR. (Dkt. 

33 ¶ 61). The IDOC rejected Chamblis’s family members’ residences as host sites 

and, because Chamblis could not independently afford housing, he remained 

imprisoned for more than four additional years until released on MSR on preliminary 

injunction. (Dkt. 22; Dkt. 33 ¶ 62). Similarly, Corey Crowe became eligible for MSR 

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 22 of 27 PageID #:636
23

on June 5, 2018, but was unable to locate or afford appropriate housing. (Dkt. 33 

¶ 65). Crowe remained imprisoned for almost two more years until released on MSR 

on preliminary injunction. (Dkt. 22; Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 65–66). John Margarella became 

eligible for MSR in December 2013 but, due to indigency and his family’s inability to 

either house or financially support him, remained imprisoned for a further six years 

until released on MSR on preliminary injunction. (Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 57–58, 60). Finally, 

Dana Monson completed his sentence of incarceration on March 25, 2012, and became 

entitled to MSR. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 54). However, Monson is indigent and does not have 

family capable of providing him housing or financial support. (Dkt. 33 ¶ 53). As a 

result, Monson spend more than eight years in prison after he became eligible for 

MSR until he was released on preliminary injunction on May 20, 2020. (Dkt. 22; Dkt. 

33 ¶¶ 54, 56).

Plaintiffs’ periods of post-sentence incarceration were not a consequence of 

their underlying offense but of their indigent or homeless status, a condition wholly 

beyond their control. Defendant’s argument that the IDOC’s requirements that sex 

offenders have a stable host site (applied collectively through statute, regulation, and 

policy) is rationally related to protecting the public, especially children, misses the 

point. In the equal protection context, the relevant inquiry is whether the 

government’s separate and discriminatory treatment of similarly situated 

individuals rationally relates to a legitimate penological interest.

Defendants point to no legitimate government interest, such as public safety 

or rehabilitation, in creating separate consequences for indigent, homeless sex 

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 23 of 27 PageID #:637
24

offenders and non-indigent, non-homeless sex offenders. “[I]ndigency . . . is itself no 

threat to the safety or welfare of society” and Defendant’s application of the One-PerAddress Statute to keep indigent and homeless sex offenders incarcerated while nonindigent and non-homeless sex offenders are released on MSR is not rationally related 

to public protection. Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 669 n. 9 (1983). There is no 

meaningful penological distinction between indigent and non-indigent sex offenders: 

the state’s public safety objective is constant. A homeless or indigent sex offender 

presumably poses the same risk to the community as one capable of affording housing 

and Defendant does not suggest the contrary. A Minnesota study suggests permitting 

registrants to live together reduces recidivism and improves supervision, findings 

consistent with McKelvey’s anecdotal experience. (Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 2, 7). Even without 

the One-Per-Address Statute, the IDOC retains the ability to carefully vet potential

host sites and registrants will still be subject to the multitude requirements of MSR. 

See 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(a), (b-1)(1)–(18). The host sites at which Plaintiffs which to 

reside comply with all other restrictions under Illinois law and IDOC policy and 

several separately offer a highly structured environment with strict rules for 

residents. (Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 12, 14–16, 31–32, 36). Defendants offer no evidence to the 

contrary. The first Turner factor, then, favors invalidating this practice.

So, too, does the second Turner factor. Plaintiffs lack an alternative means of 

exercising their constitutionally protected liberty interest. The IDOC’s application of 

the One-Per-Address Statute deprives indigent and homeless sex offenders of 

conditional liberty on MSR.

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 24 of 27 PageID #:638
25

Plaintiffs argue on reply that accommodating the right will actually have a 

positive effect on prison resources. (Dkt. 53 ¶ 19). In 2019, the average annual cost 

of keeping a person incarcerated in an IDOC facility was $30,419. See Illinois Dept. 

of Corrections, Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Report, 101, available at 

https://www2.illinois.gov/idoc/reportsandstatistics/Documents/Annual%20Report%2

0FY19.pdf (last visited Feb. 26, 2021); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (“The court may 

judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be 

accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably 

be questioned.”). By comparison, “the average cost to the State of supervising a 

parolee on release in the community is approximately $2,000/year.” (Dkt. 53 at 14) 

(citing Murphy, 380 F. Supp. 3d at 749). Accommodating the right will positively 

impact prison resources. The third Turner factor weighs in favor of Plaintiffs’ 

position.

Alternative, constitutional methods are already in place to effectuate the 

Illinois Legislature’s compelling state interest in public safety. Even without the 

One-Per-Address Statute, the IDOC retains the discretion to deny release to host 

sites deemed unsafe or likely to impede the sex offender’s rehabilitation. See 730 

ILCS 5/3-3-7(b-1)(1) (“[Registered] sex offenders . . . may be required by the [IDOC] 

to . . . reside only at a Department approved location[.]”); 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(b-1)(15) 

(“[Registered] sex offenders . . . may be required by the [IDOC] to . . . comply with all 

other special conditions that the Department may impose that restrict that person 

from high-risk situations and limit access to potential victims.”). Moreover, Illinois 

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 25 of 27 PageID #:639
26

law already severely circumscribes where convicted sex offenders may live. See 720 

ILCS 5/11-9.3(b.5) (prohibiting child sex offenders from “knowingly resid[ing] within 

500 feet of a school building”); 720 ILCS 5/11-9.3(b.10) (prohibiting child sex offenders 

from “knowingly resid[ing] within 500 feet of a playground, child care institution, day 

care center, party day child care facility, day care home, group day care home, or a 

facility providing programs or services exclusively directed towards [children]”); 730 

ILCS 5/3-3-7(b-1)(12) (prohibiting registered sex offenders from living “near . . . 

parks, schools, day care centers, swimming pools, beaches, theaters, or any other 

places where minor children congregate” without preapproval by the IDOC). Finally, 

the other conditions of MSR continue to apply to Plaintiffs and the IDOC may impose 

others deemed necessary to promote community safety and rehabilitation. See 730 

ILCS 5/3-3-7(a), (b)(1)–(18). The final Turner factor favors invalidating the One-PerAddress Statute.

Defendant’s application of the One-Per-Address Statute creates an illegal 

classification based on wealth which deprives Plaintiffs of their liberty as a result of 

their inability to pay. Nothing in this opinion should be construed to entitle Plaintiffs 

to release—immediate or otherwise. The Court merely holds that Defendant 

currently applies the One-Per-Address Statute in an unconstitutional fashion.

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their equal protection claim 

(Count II) is granted.

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 26 of 27 PageID #:640
27

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted 

with respect to their Eighth Amendment (Count I) and Fourteenth Amendment equal 

protection claims (Count II) but is denied with respect to their substantive due 

process claim. Although the Court today decides liability, it reserves ruling on the 

proper remedy to afford the plaintiffs. A status hearing will follow to discuss the need 

for a remedial hearing to determine the scope of equitable relief.

____________________________________

Virginia M. Kendall

United States District Judge

Date: March 26, 2021

Case: 1:20-cv-02137 Document #: 95 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 27 of 27 PageID #:641