## Facts

- Sam Ferris was arrested and charged under California Penal Code provisions based on sexual conduct with two minor females, ages fifteen and seventeen.
- The charges included one count under Cal. Penal Code § 261.5 and multiple counts under Cal. Penal Code §§ 288a(b)(1) and 288a(b)(2).
- Ferris pleaded nolo contendere to all charges, was sentenced to six months in county jail, and was placed on probation.
- Ferris filed a pro se civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages and injunctive relief, alleging his arrest and conviction violated the Constitution because the statutes were unconstitutional.
- Ferris sued the State of California, Santa Clara County, the City of San Jose, and two police officers involved in his arrest.
- The district court dismissed the State on sovereign-immunity grounds and dismissed the officers on qualified-immunity grounds.
- The district court dismissed the municipal claims with leave to amend, directing Ferris to allege a municipal policy, custom, or practice causing the constitutional deprivation.
- Ferris amended but continued to challenge the statutes’ constitutionality rather than plead a municipal policy; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- After judgment, Ferris attempted to file a proposed second amended complaint adding a civil RICO claim; the district court struck it as untimely and improper.

## Issues

1. Whether California statutes criminalizing specified sexual conduct between adults and minors violate substantive due process or a constitutional right to privacy.
2. Whether the statutory age classifications and related sentencing scheme violate the Equal Protection Clause.
3. Whether the statutes’ sentencing provisions are unconstitutionally vague.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by striking Ferris’s post-judgment proposed second amended complaint adding a civil RICO claim.
5. Whether Ferris stated municipal liability under § 1983 without alleging an official policy, custom, or practice causing the alleged constitutional injury.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in full.
- The court held the challenged California statutes are constitutional as applied to adult–minor sexual conduct and do not violate substantive due process or privacy rights.
- The court rejected the equal protection challenge to the statutes’ age classifications and described the claim as frivolous.
- The court held the sentencing provisions were not unconstitutionally vague because the punishments were clearly set out.
- The court upheld dismissal of the County and City claims because Ferris did not allege a municipal policy, custom, or practice as required for § 1983 municipal liability.
- The court held the district court acted within its discretion in striking Ferris’s post-judgment proposed second amended complaint adding a new RICO theory.

## Legal Principles

- States may criminalize specified sexual conduct between adults and minors without recognizing a fundamental right of adults to engage in that conduct; protecting minors from physical and psychological harm is a compelling governmental interest.
- Age-based classifications in sex-offense statutes generally receive rational-basis review and are valid when rationally related to protecting minors.
- A criminal statute is not void for vagueness as to punishment when it provides clear notice of the penalties and does not permit arbitrary enforcement regarding sentencing.
- Municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires a plaintiff to plead and prove that an official policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional deprivation; attacking state law enforcement in the abstract is insufficient.
- A district court may strike a proposed amended complaint filed after judgment when the party does not establish a proper basis to reopen the case and the amendment is untimely or procedurally improper.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for all defendants, holding that California’s statutes criminalizing certain adult–minor sexual conduct were constitutional, that Ferris failed to plead a municipal policy necessary for § 1983 liability against the County and City, and that the district court properly struck his late post-judgment attempt to add a new RICO claim.


Ferris v. Santa Clara Cnty., 891 F.2d 715 (9th Cir. 1989)