Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05117/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05117-4/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 03/20/08**

NOT FOR CITATION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 24 Filed 03/20/08 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 now seeks clarification of the Court’s order granting a stay. By letter dated

March 11, 2008, Plaintiff asserts that he is 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 appears to be based upon new facts. 

Accordingly, within fourteen (14) court days, Defendants shall file a response regarding

Plaintiff’s request for clarification.

Case 5:07-cv-05117-JF Document 24 Filed 03/20/08 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)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 20, 2008 _____________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-05117-JF Document 24 Filed 03/20/08 Page 3 of 3