M.W. v. State

 In 1996, appellant was convicted of criminal attempt incest in
Colorado. As a result, he was required to register as a sex offender. In
2004, appellant moved to Nevada and registered as a Tier-1 offender
pursuant to NRS Chapter 179D. Approximately four years later,
appellant received a letter from the Department of Public Safety advising
him that he would be reclassified as a Tier-3 offender under A.B. 579.
Appellant subsequently filed a complaint in the Eighth
Judicial District Court of Nevada to challenge the constitutionality of A.B.
579. In addition, appellant filed an ex parte application for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction of the enforcement of A.B.
579, which the state district court granted for appellant and other
similarly situated parties until the matter was fully briefed. Before the
state district court made a decision on the merits, the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada permanently enjoined
enforcement of A.B. 579. See ACLU of Nev. v. Masto, 719 F. Supp. 2d
1258, 1260 (D. Nev. 2008) (Masto I). The stay in the state district court
proceedings was then extended, pending resolution of the federal case.
Several years later, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the federal district court's decision on A.B. 579, see ACLU
of Nev. v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1067 (9th Cit. 2012) (Masto II), and this
court upheld the constitutionality of A.B. 579 in a challenge raised by a
juvenile sex offender, see Logan D., 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 52, 306 P.3d at 389-
90.
In light of Masto II and Logan D., respondents filed a motion
to dissolve the preliminary injunction, which the state district court
granted. Appellant then appealed. This court reviews a district court's
decision regarding the dissolution of a preliminary injunction for an abuse
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
da.>
of discretion. See Finkel v. Cashman Prof?, Inc., 128 Nev. 68, 72, 270 P.3d
1259, 1262 (2012). Accordingly, we will reverse such a decision if the
district court abused its discretion or if the decision is based on an
incorrect legal standard or clearly erroneous finding of fact. Boulder Oaks
Cmty. Ass'n v. B & J Andrews Enters., LLC, 125 Nev. 397, 403,215 P.3d
27, 31 (2009). Questions of law within this context, however, are reviewed
de novo. Id.
"A preliminary injunction is available when the moving party
can demonstrate that the nonmoving party's conduct, if allowed to
continue, will cause irreparable harm for which compensatory relief is
inadequate and that the moving party has a reasonable likelihood of
success on the merits." Id. We conclude that appellant's arguments lack
merit in light of Logan D. and Masto IL Further, the record below is not
sufficiently developed to sustain appellant's claims, specifically his
arguments under the Contracts Clause." Appellant did not meet his
burden of clearly demonstrating that A.B. 579 is unconstitutional as
applied to him at this time, and thus, he could not show a reasonable
likelihood of success on the merits to maintain his preliminary injunction.
'Although appellant generally discusses plea bargains in the
analysis of his Contracts Clause claim, he does not specify the terms and
conditions of his plea agreement. Instead, appellant classifies his
conditions of probation with the state of Colorado as a contract. However,
these conditions do not constitute an enforceable contract. See
Commonwealth v. MacDonald, 736 N.E.2d 444, 447-48 (Mass. App. Ct.
2000); Yates v. State, 792 P.2d 187, 189 (Wyo. 1990). Further, the record
is silent as to the circumstances of appellant's move from Colorado to
Nevada. It is unknown whether he entered into an interstate compact or
another agreement that may pertain to his Contracts Clause claim.
Therefore, appellant's claim fails at this time.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) I947A
3
As a result, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion
by dissolving the injunction. Accordingly, we
ORDER the order of the district court AFFIRMED.
, C.J.
Hardesty
J.
Parraguirre
Gibbons
0
. Icral
Pickering
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge
McLetchie Shell LLC
Robert L. Langford & Associates
Attorney General/Transportation Division/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
10) N17A
5