Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Loren Edward McNAB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cynthia KOK; Hardy Myers, Attorney General of the State of Oregon, Respondents-Appellees

Loren Edward McNAB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cynthia KOK; Hardy Myers, Att’y Gen. of the State of Or., Respondents-Appellees, 170 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 1999)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1999-03-25
Topic
litigation

How later courts describe this case

  • holding the same with respect to Oregon sexual offender laws
  • determining Oregon sex offender registry requirement does not render habeas petitioner in custody
  • Oregon sex offender registration law does not place sufficient restraints on convicts to constitute custody

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Loren Edward McNAB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cynthia KOK; Hardy Myers, Attorney General of the State of Oregon, Respondents-Appellees. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
43 opinions
McNAB v. KOK,170 F.3d 1246(9th Cir. 1999)
Loren Edward McNAB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cynthia KOK; Hardy Myers,
Attorney General of the State of Oregon, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 97-35481
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 1999.1
Decided March 25, 1999.
Wendy Rae Willis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Portland, Oregon, for the petitioner-appellant.Page 1247

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:
[1] Loren Edward McNab, a former Oregon prisoner, appeals the district court's dismissal of his28 U.S.C. § 2254habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to28 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 1387,1389n. 6 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.

[2] 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.

[3] 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.CompareCal.Penal Code §290(West 1998) and Wash. Rev. Code §9A.44.130(West 1998)withOr.Rev. Stat. §§181.595181.596(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.

[4] AFFIRMED.
  1. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.SeeFed.R.App.P.34(a). ↩