Legal Opinion

William Thornton v. Arnold Schwarzeneggar

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided July 31, 2013No. 11-56146PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by Judge GRABER; Dissent by Judge IKUTA.

OPINION

GRABER, Circuit Judge:

In this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff William Cecil Thornton brings a constitutional challenge to the imposition and enforcement of two conditions of his parole: a residency restriction and a requirement that he submit to electronic monitoring using a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) device. Citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489-90, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973), and Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), the district court concluded that…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Will v. Michigan Department of State PoliceSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Heck v. HumphreySupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. Preiser v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. Wilkinson v. DotsonSupreme Court of the United States · 2005

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. William Thornton v. Edmund G. Brown, JrCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
  2. William Thornton v. Edmund G. Brown, JrCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
  3. Guillory v. Contra Costa CountyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025
  4. Guillory v. Contra Costa CountyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025
  5. William Thornton v. Edmund G. Brown, JrCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API