From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McNab v. Kok

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 25, 1999
170 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 1999)

Summary

holding the same with respect to Oregon sexual offender laws

Summary of this case from Resendiz v. Kovensky

Opinion

No. 97-35481

Submitted March 15, 1999.

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

Decided March 25, 1999.

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.



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, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (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.


Summaries of

McNab v. Kok

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 25, 1999
170 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 1999)

holding the same with respect to Oregon sexual offender laws

Summary of this case from Resendiz v. Kovensky

holding that Oregon's sex offender registration requirements "place no greater restraint on personal liberty than those of California and Washington" and therefore do not significantly restraint registrants' physical liberty

Summary of this case from Ferguson v. Oregon

holding that a § 2254 petitioner challenging Oregon's sex-offender registration law did not meet the "in custody" requirement because the law did not impose a significant restraint on the petitioner's liberty

Summary of this case from McCarty v. Roos

dismissing a habeas petition after concluding that Oregon's sex-offender statute does not place an offender "in custody" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Summary of this case from Leslie v. Randle

dismissing a habeas petition after concluding that Oregon's sex-offender statute does not place an offender "in custody" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Summary of this case from Bell v. New Jersey

In McNab v. Kok, 170 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 1999), the Ninth Circuit applied the holding in Maleng to a petition filed by a sex offender subject to the registration requirements of Oregon's sex offender registration statutes.

Summary of this case from Byrum v. State

reaching same result as Williamson but analyzing Oregon's sex offender registration law

Summary of this case from Coleman v. Arpaio

dismissing a habeas petition after concluding that Oregon's sex-offender statute does not place an offender "in custody" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Summary of this case from COX v. BRUNSMAN

analyzing Oregon's sex offender law

Summary of this case from Ridley v. Sellers
Case details for

McNab v. Kok

Case Details

Full title:Loren Edward McNAB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cynthia KOK; Hardy Myers…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 25, 1999

Citations

170 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 1999)

Citing Cases

Munoz v. Smith

Id. Similarly, in McNab v. Kok , 170 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we addressed Oregon's sex…

Wilson v. Flaherty

Neither the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit nor any District Court within the Fourth…