William Thornton v. Arnold Schwarzeneggar
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
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
- Will v. Michigan Department of State PoliceSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Heck v. HumphreySupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Preiser v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Wilkinson v. DotsonSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- William Thornton v. Edmund G. Brown, JrCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- William Thornton v. Edmund G. Brown, JrCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Guillory v. Contra Costa CountyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025
- Guillory v. Contra Costa CountyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025
- William Thornton v. Edmund G. Brown, JrCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014