Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05117/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05117-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

27

28

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C-07-5117 JF

ORDER RE CLARIFICATION

(JFLC3)

**E-filed 04/10/08**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOHN DOE, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C-07-5117 JF

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 1

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks to restrain Defendants from enforcing Cal. Penal Code §3003.5(b) and (c)

as amended by the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act (“SPPCA”), also known as

“Jessica’s Law.” These provisions prohibit any person required to register as a sex offender

pursuant to Cal. Penal Code §290 from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where

children regularly gather, and requires such persons to be monitored by a global positioning

system (“G.P.S.”). The SPPCA went into effect on November 8, 2006. Other courts have

determined that the SPPCA does not have retroactive effect, meaning that sex offenders released

from custody prior to the enactment of the SPPCA are not subjected to its provisions. See Doe v.

Case 5:07-cv-05117-JF Document 27 Filed 04/10/08 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

2

Case No. C-07-5117 JF

ORDER RE CLARIFICATION

(JFLC3)

Schwarzenegger, 476 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1180-81 (E.D. Cal. 2007). Plaintiff’s application for a

temporary restraining order asserts that the SPPCA is being given impermissible retroactive

effect as to him. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from enforcing the residency restriction

provision of the SPPCA; he does not challenge the G.P.S. monitoring requirement. 

Plaintiff was charged, convicted, sentenced and released with respect to a sex crime prior

to the enactment of the SPPCA. Because he served time for a rape conviction, Plaintiff was

required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code section 290. However, Plaintiff

repeatedly failed to register and as a consequence he was sentenced to county jail and probation

on at least three occasions. In 2005, while still on probation, Plaintiff was arrested and

subsequently convicted of possession of methamphetamine and using or being under the

influence of methamphetamine. Plaintiff’s probation for his previous failure to register was

revoked, and Plaintiff was sentenced to thirty-two months in state prison. Plaintiff was not

released from prison until after the effective date of the SPPCA. Thus, while Plaintiff was

charged with rape prior to the enactment of the SPPCA, he was returned to prison for a probation

violation related to that crime and was serving time for that violation at the time the SPPCA was

enacted. Under these circumstances, there is a substantial legal question as to whether the

SPPCA is being applied retroactively to Plaintiff. 

On September 19, 2007, the Court ordered Defendants to show cause why relief should

not be granted. Defendants responded in part by requesting that the Court stay the instant case in

light of In re E.J., S.P., J.S., K.T, filed October 4, 2007 and now pending before the California

Supreme Court. Defendants also asserted that the SPPCA applies to Plaintiff and is not being

applied retroactively. The Court granted the stay. 

Plaintiff subsequently sought clarification of the Court’s order granting a stay. By letter

dated March 11, 2008, Plaintiff asserted that he was being told by his parole officer that the

residency restriction provision of the SPPCA applies to him and that he will be arrested for this

violation if he remains at his current residence. Plaintiff’s request appeared to be based upon

new facts. Accordingly, the Court directed Defendants to file a response regarding Plaintiff’s

request for clarification.

Case 5:07-cv-05117-JF Document 27 Filed 04/10/08 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

3

Case No. C-07-5117 JF

ORDER RE CLARIFICATION

(JFLC3)

Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) responded

as follows:

Plaintiff apparently believes that the California Supreme Court’s stay of

enforcement in the In re E.J. case bars CDCR from attempting to enforce the

residency restriction as to him. That stay order applies only to the four petitioners

in the In re E.J. action itself. In declining to extend the stay to other California

parolees who must register under Penal Code section 290, however, the California

Supreme Court stated that its ruling was without prejudice to a parolee’s right to

seek similar relief in a state superior court. As plaintiff may bring such a state

court action, a continued stay of proceedings in this Court is appropriate and

necessary to avoid unnecessary adjudication of unsettled state law issues. 

Accordingly, the Court’s Order staying proceedings pending the California Supreme

Court’s decision in In re E.J. will remain in effect. Plaintiff should seek relief in state court

regarding his new concern relating to his parole officer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 10, 2008 _____________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-05117-JF Document 27 Filed 04/10/08 Page 3 of 3