McGee v. Oakland Police Department, 3:24-cv-07044

Plaintiff Anthony S. McGee, a former federal prisoner and frequent pro se litigant, challenged his ongoing obligation to register as a sex offender under California Penal Code section 290.
McGee was adjudicated as a juvenile in 1994 for lewd acts with a minor and ordered to register as a sex offender; at that time, the law required registration until age 25.
Subsequent amendments to the California law removed the age-25 cutoff and instituted a scheme requiring registration for a period plus tolling incarceration time.
McGee was repeatedly prosecuted for failure to register, and the courts consistently found he remained under a duty to register due to time spent incarcerated (tolling the 10-year requirement after release).
McGee filed a § 1983 complaint, alleging his registration obligation ended at 25 and challenging related government actions as due process violations.
The District Court reviewed prior judicial findings and state statutes, ultimately dismissing McGee's complaint for failure to state a claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McGee's sex offender registration obligation ended at age 25	His duty ended at age 25 per the law in effect at his adjudication.	Law was amended before his release; 10-year duty, tolled by incarceration, extends obligation.	Registration duty continues until at least Nov 2026.
Applicability of tolling provisions to juveniles	Tolling for incarceration doesn't apply; only original 10 years applies under § 290.008.	Tolling under § 290(e) applies to all subject to Act, including those under § 290.008.	Tolling applies; registration not yet expired.
Requirement to destroy registration records at age 25	State must destroy records once registrant turns 25, under prior law.	Amendments eliminated auto-destruction at 25; only applies if records later sealed per statute.	No duty to destroy records at age 25; claim denied.
Ex Post Facto violation from applying amended law	Applying current scheme retroactively is punitive, violating ex post facto principles.	Law change is civil/regulatory, not punitive, so ex post facto clause is not violated.	No ex post facto violation; amendment permitted.

In re Jose T., 191 Cal. App. 4th 1142 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (clarified that CYA is now known as Division of Juvenile Facilities within Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation).
People v. Cooper, 54 Cal. App. 5th 106 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (statutory construction requires harmonizing related provisions).
People v. I.B., 104 Cal. App. 5th 702 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024) (registration requirements under § 290.008 apply to minors released from DJJ).