Orfield v. Commonwealth of Virginia
3:12-cv-00541
E.D. Va.Aug 16, 2012Background
- Plaintiff Robert G. Orfield, pro se, filed in the Eastern District of Virginia seeking removal from Virginia's Sex Offender Registry.
- Court granted in forma pauperis status and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a federal claim.
- Court found no federal question and declined supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claim.
- Court dismissed federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- Plaintiff alleges five claims: non-qualifying criminal record for registry, Ex Post Facto violation, Bill of Attainder violation, discrimination as a protected class, and double jeopardy-related punishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the registry violates Ex Post Facto principles | Orfield contends retroactive registry effects are punitive. | Court previously held registry not punitive. | Ex Post Facto not violated; registry not punitive. |
| Whether registry violates Bill of Attainder | Registry listing is a legislative punitive designation. | No Bill of Attainder applicable. | Bills of Attainder not violated. |
| Whether former sex offenders constitute a protected class | Former offenders form a protected class. | No protected-class status recognized for this group. | No protected-class protection found. |
| Whether the case should proceed on state-law claims via supplemental jurisdiction | State-law claim should survive with federal questions. | Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims are dismissed. | Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claim. |
| Whether the federal claims should be dismissed given the procedural posture | Federal claims dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and Rule 12(b)(6). |
Key Cases Cited
- Ballard v. FBI, 102 Fed. Appx. 828 (4th Cir. 2004) (Ex Post Facto not violated; registry not punitive; supports dismissal of federal claims)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (U.S. 2003) (Registry not punitive; supports no EPF violation or related claims)
- Kitze v. Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 213 (1996) (Virginia registry criteria; relevance to punitive analysis)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (Standard for liberally construed pro se pleadings)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (Pro se pleadings liberal construction)
- Mylan Labs, Inc. v. Matkaru, 1 F.3d 1130 (4th Cir. 1993) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard and liberal construction of allegations)
- Kendall v. City of Chesapeake, 174 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 1999) (Court’s discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims are dismissed)