Glauner

Glauner v. Miller

Good Law
184 F.3d 1053·1999 WL 536694
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 27, 1999No. 98-15543California689 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Dale Glauner appeals from the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) judgment of dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. He asserts that Nevada Revised Statutes § 213.1214, 2 which requires a panel to certify that certain sexual offenders are not a “menace to the health, safety or morals of others” prior to parole eligibility, is facially unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the constitutionality of a state statute, and we affirm. See Crawford v. Lungren, 96 F.3d 380, 384 (9th Cir.1996) (providing for de novo review).

Glauner is a Nevada state prisoner, serving time for his conviction for certain sexual offenses. Under § 213.1214, a pre-paróle hearing panel must certify that he is “not a menace to the health, safety or morals of others” before he is eligible for parole:

Nev.Rev.Stat. § 213.1214 (1999).

Glauner raises two facial challenges to § 213.1214:(1) it distinguishes between sexual offenders and other criminal offenders in violation of his right to equal protection and (2) the phrase “menace to the health, safety or morals of others” is void for vagueness in violation of his right to due process.

I. Equal Protection

Glauner asserts…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.