Litmon v. Harris, No. 12-15261 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff was adjudicated a sexually violent predator under California Welfare and Institutions Code 6600(a)(1) and has been reporting to his local police station every 90 days to fill out a registration form pursuant to the requirements of California Penal Code 290.012(b). At issue on appeal is the constitutionality of section 290.012(b). The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim that the registration requirement violates the fundamental right to be free from physical restraint by requiring sexually violent predators to appear in person every 90 days to register. Applying rational basis review, the court concluded that the registration requirement is rationally related to California's interest in deterring recidivism and promoting public safety. The district court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim that the registration requirement violates the Ex Post Facto Clause; plaintiff's equal protection challenge failed because neither mentally disordered offenders nor mentally disordered sex offenders are similarly situated to sexually violent predators; plaintiff waived his claim that section 290.012(b) is unconstitutionally vague; and plaintiff failed to state a claim under California's Administrative Procedure Act, Cal. Gov't Code 11340 et seq. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging California Penal Code § 290.012(b), which requires that “every person who has ever been adjudicated a sexually violent predator” to appear before local law enforcement every 90 days for the rest of their lives to verify certain identifying information. Citing United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2012), the panel held that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claim that the registration requirement violates the fundamental right to be free from physical restraint by requiring sexually violent predators to appear in person every 90 days to register. Absent a fundamental right, the panel held that strict scrutiny was inapplicable. Applying rational basis review, the panel concluded that the in-person registration requirement survived. The panel held that it was not irrational for the California legislature to conclude that requiring those who have been convicted of sexually violent offenses to register in person every 90 days may deter recidivism and promote public safety. Citing Smith v. Doe I, 538 U.S. 84, 97 (2003), the panel held that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s ex post facto claim that “the cumulative burden of the [registration] requirement . . . makes it an unconstitutionally retroactive punishment.” The panel further held that plaintiff’s equal protection claim was also properly dismissed because neither mentally disordered offenders nor mentally disordered sex offenders are similarly situated to sexually violent predators. The panel held that plaintiff’s void-for-vagueness challenge was waived because he failed to present it to the district. The panel further held that plaintiff’s argument that the California Department of Justice’s failure to issue formal regulations governing the manner of registration under section 290.012(b) violated the California Administrative Procedure Act was also waived.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.