The following excerpt is from Gustard v. Harris, No. 2:17-cv-0012-EFB P (E.D. Cal. 2017):
Furthermore, "an equal protection claim can in some circumstances be sustained even if the plaintiff has not alleged class-based discrimination, but instead claims that [he] has been irrationally singled out as a so-called 'class of one.'" Engquist v. Or. Dep't of Agr., 553 U.S. 591, 601 (2008). To prevail on a "class of one" equal protection claim, plaintiff must establish that defendants have "intentionally treated [him] differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment." Id. (citation omitted).
Here, plaintiff has not stated a facially plausible equal protection claim. For one, "sex offenders do not comprise a suspect class" for equal protection purposes. Litmon v. Harris, 768
Page 18
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.