Roderick Mitchell v. Kamala Harris
This text of Roderick Mitchell v. Kamala Harris (Roderick Mitchell v. Kamala Harris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODERICK L. MITCHELL, No. 17-15168
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02993-MCE-AC
v. MEMORANDUM** XAVIER BECERRA*, Attorney General; JAMES C. SANCHEZ,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018***
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Roderick L. Mitchell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging a violation of the ex post facto clause of the United
* Xavier Becerra has been substituted for his predecessor, Kamala D. Harris, as Attorney General under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). ** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). States Constitution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler,
627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Mitchell’s action because Mitchell
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that California Penal Code § 290.46 has a
punitive purpose or effect. See U.S. CONST. ART. I, § 9, cl. 3; Smith v. Doe, 538
U.S. 84, 104-05 (2003) (setting forth factors for determining whether a statute is
punitive for purposes of the ex post facto clause).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Becerra’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his answering brief, is
granted.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-15168
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Roderick Mitchell v. Kamala Harris, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roderick-mitchell-v-kamala-harris-ca9-2018.