United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
GERALD D. ENQUIST, Plaintiff,
ANDRIA SHAW CONGER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court on Defendants Andria Shaw
Conger, Paul Pastor, and Pierce County Sheriff's
Department's (“Defendants”) motion to dismiss
(Dkt. 15). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in
support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder
of the file and hereby grants the motion for the reasons
February 7, 2017, Plaintiff Gerald Enquist
(“Enquist”) filed a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis and a proposed complaint. Id.
Enquist alleges that, as a result of a 1976 arrest and
conviction, he must register with the Pierce County
Sex/Kidnapping Offender Registration Unit
(“SKORU”). Id. He claims that he must
report on a weekly basis because he is a transient, while
similarly situated individuals with a fixed address must only
contact SKORU once or if they move to a new address.
Id. Enquist asserts that RCW 9A.44.130 violates his
constitutional right to travel, due process rights, and equal
protection rights. Id.
April 11, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt.
15. On April 26, 2017, Enquist responded. Dkt. 17. On May 5,
2017, Defendants replied. Dkt. 21-1.
August 1, 2016, Enquist contacted SKORU requesting permission
to travel outside of Pierce County. Although not clearly
alleged in his complaint, Enquist has provided additional
information alleging that Defendant Conger told Enquist that,
before he could travel outside of Pierce County, Enquist must
provide the dates and addresses of where he would be staying
in advance and that traveling without providing this
information would result in a felony warrant for his arrest.
Dkt. 17 at 4.
to dismiss brought under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) may be based
on either the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the
absence of sufficient facts alleged under such a theory.
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d
696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Material allegations are taken as
admitted and the complaint is construed in the
plaintiff's favor. Keniston v. Roberts, 717 F.2d
1295, 1301 (9th Cir. 1983). To survive a motion to dismiss,
the complaint does not require detailed factual allegations
but must provide the grounds for entitlement to relief and
not merely a “formulaic recitation” of the
elements of a cause of action. Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A plaintiff must
allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
argue they are not the proper parties to defend a facial
challenge to RCW § 9A.44.130(b)(6). Dkt. 15 at 5. The
Court agrees to the extent that Enquist alleges any
enforcement of the statute is unconstitutional. Thus,
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.1(a), the attorney general must be
notified of this matter. If Enquist asserts a facial
challenge in an amended complaint, the Court will direct the
Clerk to notify the Washington attorney general.
Pierce County Sheriff's Department
argue that the Pierce County Sheriff's Department is not
an entity capable of being sued. Dkt. 15 at 9. The Court
agrees and grants Enquist leave to amend to remove the