99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2157, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2820 Loren Edward Mcnab, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cynthia Kok; Hardy Myers, Attorney General of the State of Oregon, Respondents-Appellees., 170 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 1999)

Federal Circuits, 9th Cir. (March 25, 1999)

Docket number: 97-35481

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/loren-mcnab-cynthia-kok-hardy-myers-36164917
Id. vLex: VLEX-36164917

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Sponsored Ads:

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 473, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 551 Robert E. Henry, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Daniel Lungren, California State Attorney General, Respondent-Appellant, Wayne Estelle, Respondent., 164 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1999)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Elbert W. Williamson, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Christine O. Gregoire, Respondent-Appellee., 151 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 1998)

US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure - 28 USC 2254 - Sec. 2254. State custody; remedies in Federal courts

US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure - 28 USC 2253 - Sec. 2253. Appeal

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3955, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6463 Michael Angelo Morales, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arthur Calderon, Warden, Respondent-Appellee., 85 F.3d 1387 (9th Cir. 1996) 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6463 Michael Angelo Morales, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arthur Calderon, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

See other documents that cite the same legislation

RSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Albert Bribiesca, Petitioner-Appellee, v. George Galaza, Warden, Respondent-Appellant., 215 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2000)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Anthony Lewis Whalem/Hunt, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard Early, Warden, Respondent-Appellee., 204 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2000)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Kenneth Paul Dows, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tana Wood, Respondent-Appellee., 211 F.3d 480 (9th Cir. 2000)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - Oliver W. Leslie, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael Randle, Warden, Respondent-Appellee., 296 F.3d 518 (6th Cir. 2002)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Bruce Wayne Morris, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne Woodford, Acting Warden of California State Prison At San Quentin, Respondent-Appellee., 229 F.3d 775 (9th Cir. 2000)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Bruce Wayne Morris, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne Woodford, Acting Warden California State Prison At San Quentin, Respondent-Appellee. Bruce Wayne Morris, Petitioner, v. United States District Court, Eastern District of California (Sacramento), Respondent, Jeanne Woodford, Warden, San Quentin Prison, Real Party in Interest., 273 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2001) Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeanne Woodford, Acting Warden California State Prison At San Quentin, Respondent-Appellee. Bruce Wayne Morris, Petitioner, v. United States District Court, Eastern District of California (Sacramento), Respondent, Jeanne Woodford, Warden, San Quentin Prison, Real Party in Interest.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Eddie Charles Spivey, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theresa Rocha, Warden, California State Prison, Respondent-Appellee., 194 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 1999)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Steven Edward Manning, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Phil Foster, Respondent-Appellee., 224 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2000)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - John Thomas Drayden, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theo White, Warden, Respondent-Appellee., 232 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 2000)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Ephen Whelchel, Petitioner-Appellee, v. State of Washington, Respondent-Appellant. Tana Wood, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant, v. Stephen C. Whelchel, Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee., 232 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2000)

See all citations to this document

Text:

Wendy Rae Willis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Portland, Oregon, for the petitioner-appellant.

David B. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, Oregon, for the respondents-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; Robert E. Jones, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-96-06010-REJ.

Before: SNEED, KOZINSKI, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Loren Edward McNab, a former Oregon prisoner, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253. We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a habeas corpus petition, see Morales v. Calderon, 85 F.3d 1387, 1389 n. 6 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

McNab filed a habeas corpus petition challenging Oregon's sex offender registration requirements. On appeal, McNab contends that the district court erred by dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that McNab was not "in custody" within the meaning of section 2254(a). This contention lacks merit.

We have held that Washington's and California's sex offender registration statutes do not place a petitioner in custody because these statutes do not place "a significant restraint on ... physical liberty" by restricting the registrant's freedom to move about. Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1183-84 (9th Cir.1998) (Washington), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 119 S.Ct. 824, 142 L.Ed.2d 682 (1999); see Henry v. Lungren, 164 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir.1999) (California). Like their counterparts in California and Washington, sex offenders subject to registration in Oregon are free to move to a new place of residence so long as they notify law enforcement officials of their new address. Compare Cal.Penal Code § 290 (West 1998) and Wash. Rev.Code § 9A.44.130 (West 1998) with Or.Rev.Stat. §§ 181.595 & 181.596 (West 1997). Accordingly, because Oregon's sex offender registration requirements place no greater restraint on personal liberty than those of California and Washington, the Oregon law does not place McNab in custody within the meaning of section 2254(a). See Henry, 164 F.3d at 1241-42; Williamson, 151 F.3d at 1184.

AFFIRMED.

1 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)

Sponsored Ads:

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

Constitutions
Forms and Contracts
Legal Books and Journals
Case Law
News and Business
Regulations
U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access

Home / United States /

Case Law

vlex /