Legal Opinion
Carlos Castro v. Cal Terhune
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 5, 2013No. 11-16837PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
Under the “void-for-vagueness” doctrine, due process requires enactments to be written with “sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983). Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3378(c)(4), an administrative regulation that guides prison officials in validating inmates as gang affiliates, satisfies both requirements. Due process also requires such validations to be supported…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Turner v. SafleySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution at Walpole v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Calop Business Systems, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2013
- Monarch Content Management LLC v. Arizona Department of GamingCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- In re CabreraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Anthony A. v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2021
- Everett Gonzalez v. C. GardemalCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.