Davis v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections et al

Filing 9

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 3 Defendants The Oklahoma Department of Corrections and Robert Patton's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 7/18/14. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ROGER DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND ROBERT
PATTON, as Director,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV-14-594-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed this action in the District Court of Oklahoma County, State of
Oklahoma, arguing that certain provisions of Oklahoma’s Sex Offender Registration Act
(“SORA”) violate the Oklahoma Constitution. Defendants removed the action asserting that
Plaintiff’s assertion that SORA violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States
Constitution was sufficient to grant this Court jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Defendants now seek dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing Plaintiff has
failed to state a claim for relief.
After considering the parties’ arguments, the Court finds the Plaintiff has failed to
state a claim for violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. As Defendants
note, the U.S. Supreme Court has routinely held that laws such as SORA are not punitive in
nature and do not have a punitive effect, at least to the extent they are measured by federal
jurisprudence. However, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has reached a different conclusion
in examining SORA as it impacts the Oklahoma Constitution’s ex post facto clause. Whether

or not the state clause was actually violated in Plaintiff’s case hinges on facts and therefore
cannot be resolved at this stage. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiff has asserted a claim for
violation of the Oklahoma Constitution, he has pleaded a claim for relief.
As for Plaintiff’s equal protection claim, the Court finds that resolution of that claim
under both the U.S. and Oklahoma Constitutions requires intensive factual analysis that is
improper at this stage. The allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s state court Petition are
sufficient to state a claim under both constitutions.
For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants The Oklahoma Department of Corrections
and Robert Patton’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 3) is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff’s claim
for violation of the U.S. Constitution Ex Post Facto Clause is DISMISSED. In all other
respects the Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of July, 2014.

2