Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05117/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05117-2/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 STAYING PROCEEDINGS

(JFLC3)

**E-filed 10/17/07**

NOT FOR CITATION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 STAYING PROCEEDINGS

1

[re: docket no. 1]

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. Additionally, such persons are monitored by a global positioning

system (“GPS”). The SPPCA went into effect on November 8, 2006. Courts have determined

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

Case 5:07-cv-05117-JF Document 20 Filed 10/17/07 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 STAYING PROCEEDINGS

(JFLC3)

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

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

temporary restraining order asserts that this law is being given impermissible retroactive effect as

to him. He seeks to enjoin Defendants from enforcing the residency restriction provision of the

SPPCA; he does not challenge the GPS monitoring requirement. 

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

not be granted. Defendants responded 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 assert that Plaintiff was released from incarceration on or after

the SPPCA’s effective date and that accordingly the SPPCA applies to him in any event.

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 his address, and as a consequence on at least three occasions was

sentenced to county jail and probation. 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 remains a legal question as to whether the SPPCA is

being applied retroactively to Plaintiff. 

In light of the foregoing facts, the Court agrees with Defendants that the instant case

should be stayed pending the decision of the California Supreme Court in In re E.J., S.P., J.S.,

K.T.

Case 5:07-cv-05117-JF Document 20 Filed 10/17/07 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 STAYING PROCEEDINGS

(JFLC3)

II. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant case is stayed

pending the decision of the California Supreme Court decision in In re E.J., S.P., J.S., K.T.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 17, 2007 _____________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-05117-JF Document 20 Filed 10/17/07 Page 3 of 3