Carney v. Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, 875 F.3d 1347

Ray Carney, a state prisoner convicted of child sexual abuse, will be required on release to obtain a driver’s license that indicates he is an aggravated sex offender under Oklahoma law. Failing to obtain such a license can lead to license cancellation and misdemeanor penalties.
Carney sued challenging the license requirement on Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds in district court; the district court dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim. Carney appealed and filed a supplemental brief raising a First Amendment compelled-speech claim for the first time on appeal.
Carney’s notice of appeal was filed six days after the 30-day deadline; he later submitted a prison-mailbox declaration and the court excused the late filing under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1)(B).
The panel declined to consider the First Amendment claim because it was forfeited for failure to raise it below and was not adequately preserved or argued under plain-error review on appeal.
On the Eighth Amendment claim, the court held the license requirement is not cruel and unusual punishment; no incarceration or physical harm is threatened and the requirement is not grossly disproportionate.
On the Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claim, the court held Carney failed to show he is similarly situated to others not required to carry the offender-designated license; even if similarly situated, the statute survives rational-basis review based on legislative findings about public safety.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal	Carney’s appeal should be treated as timely under the prison mailbox rule (notice deposited Sept 9).	Government relied on 30-day deadline; notice filed Sept 15 was late.	Court excused late filing and deemed appeal timely after accepting Carney’s declaration.
First Amendment (compelled speech)	License forces Carney to convey that he committed sex offenses; violates compelled-speech protections.	Claim was not raised in district court; forfeited and inadequately argued on appeal.	Forfeited below and waived on appeal; court declined to consider it.
Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual)	License requirement is punitive and grossly disproportionate, constituting cruel and unusual punishment.	Requirement is not punitive in a cruel-and-unusual sense and is not grossly disproportionate.	Dismissal affirmed: requirement is not cruel and unusual given precedents and lack of physical harm or incarceration risk.
Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)	Aggravated offenders are treated worse (must carry offender-designated license) than similarly situated non‑aggravated registrants; law reflects animus.	Aggravated offenders are not similarly situated to ordinary registrants; legislature has rational bases (public safety) for classification.	Dismissal affirmed: Carney not similarly situated; even under broad view, statute satisfies rational-basis review and does not exhibit animus requiring heightened review.

Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (gross disproportionality standard is high for noncapital sentences)
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (sentence proportionality deference to legislature)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (upholding severe sentences absent gross disproportionality)
Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 (deference in proportionality challenges)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (pro se pleadings construed liberally)
Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (equal protection requires treating like cases alike)
F.C.C. v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (rational-basis review allows any conceivable rational basis)
U.S. Dep’t of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (animus as an illegitimate legislative motive)
Bishop v. Smith, 760 F.3d 1070 (discussion of heightened rational-basis and structural indicia of animus)
United States v. Jarvis, 499 F.3d 1196 (arguments not raised below are ordinarily forfeited)