Robert McCarty v. John Roos, 689 F. App'x 576

Background

McCarty, proceeding pro se, sued federal and state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations arising from his sex-offender registration requirements.
The district court dismissed several claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and granted summary judgment on certain injunctive-relief claims; McCarty appealed.
Key contested remedies included official-capacity claims for damages and injunctive relief, and individual-capacity claims asserting constitutional violations (equal protection, substantive and procedural due process).
Defendants raised Eleventh Amendment immunity for state officials and qualified immunity for individual-capacity claims; defendants also opposed McCarty’s requests for judicial notice of various international statutes/treaties.
The district court denied McCarty’s judicial-notice requests and found no genuine dispute that Nevada and federal law required registration; McCarty challenged the court’s impartiality and evidentiary handling.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McCarty pleaded plausible official-capacity claims against federal defendants	McCarty alleged constitutional violations from registration requirements	Federal defendants argued pleadings lacked sufficient facts to state plausible claims	Dismissed for failure to state a claim; pleadings insufficient
Whether state defendants are immune under the Eleventh Amendment for official-capacity claims	McCarty sought relief against state officials in their official capacities	State defendants asserted Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State and its officials in official capacity	Dismissed based on Eleventh Amendment immunity
Whether individual-capacity claims survive qualified immunity	McCarty argued defendants violated his clearly established constitutional rights	Defendants invoked qualified immunity, arguing no clearly established right was violated	Dismissed; defendants entitled to qualified immunity because McCarty didn’t show violation of a clearly established right
Whether summary judgment on injunctive relief was appropriate concerning registration requirement	McCarty contended he should not be required to register and sought injunctions	Defendants showed statutory and state-law registration requirements applied	Summary judgment affirmed for defendants (no genuine dispute that registration was required)
Whether judicial notice requests and evidentiary complaints warranted relief	McCarty asked the court to take judicial notice of international statutes/treaties and alleged procedural errors	Defendants argued requests were irrelevant or improper; district court properly exercised discretion	Denied: judicial notice requests denied and procedural/impartiality claims rejected

Key Cases Cited

Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and summary judgment)
United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999 (9th Cir.) (requirements for equal protection and due process claims)
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir.) (pro se pleadings must still plead plausible claims)
Krainski v. Nev., 616 F.3d 963 (9th Cir.) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states and state officials in official capacity)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S.) (qualified immunity; defendant entitled to it unless conduct violated clearly established right)
United States v. Crowder, 656 F.3d 870 (9th Cir.) (explaining SORNA registration requirements)
Nollette v. State, 46 P.3d 87 (Nev.) (Nevada law on sex-offender registration requirements)
Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 669 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for judicial notice denials)
Ruiz v. City of Santa Maria, 160 F.3d 543 (9th Cir.) (judicial notice inappropriate when facts are irrelevant to disposition)