Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02521/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02521-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN DOE,

NO. CIV. S-06-2521 LKK/GGH

Plaintiff,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, O R D E R

Governor of California,

in his official capacity,

et al

Defendants.

 /

The court previously requested supplemental briefing on the

propriety of declaratory relief in this case. This request

followed the court’s February 9, 2007 order, which found that the

law, properly construed, did not apply to plaintiffs. Despite this

ruling, one of the defendants, the Attorney General, still

“maintains that the 2000 foot residency restriction may apply to

each plaintiff if they move in the future.” Supp. Br. at 2. The

court already held that the law may not be applied to plaintiffs

in such a situation, but the Attorney General’s statement

illustrates the need for declaratory relief.

Case 2:06-cv-02521-LKK -GGH Document 106 Filed 03/06/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, the court hereby DECLARES as follows:

1. The SPPCA’s residency restriction and GPS monitoring

provisions, set forth in Cal. Penal Code §§ 3003.5, 3004, &

3004.07, do not apply to plaintiffs, because they were convicted

prior to the effective date of the statute and were paroled, given

probation, or released from incarceration prior to that date.

2. The SPPCA’s residency restriction also does not apply to

plaintiffs once they relocate to another residence within 2,000

feet of any public or private school, or park where children

regularly gather.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 5, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02521-LKK -GGH Document 106 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 2