United States District Court, W.D. Washington
GERALD D. ENQUIST, Plaintiff,
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND, AND STRIKING
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendant State of
Washington's (“State”) motion for summary
judgment (Dkt. 36) and Plaintiff Gerald Enquist's
(“Enquist”) cross-motion for summary judgment
(Dkt. 39). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in
support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder
of the file and hereby rules as follows:
February 7, 2017, Enquist filed a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis and proposed complaint. Dkts. 1, 1-1.
Enquist alleged 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.
February 9, 2018, the Court granted Enquist's motion and
dismissed his complaint in part. Dkt. 3. The Court dismissed
Enquist's right to travel and due process claims in light
of Russell v. Gregoire, 124 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir.
1997). Dkt. 3. The Court allowed Enquist's equal
protection claim to proceed and ordered service. Id.
Enquist filed two motions for reconsideration arguing that he
meant to assert an as applied challenge that Defendants
Andria Shaw Conger (“Conger”), Paul Pastor
(“Pastor”), and Pierce County Sheriff's
Department (“Defendants”) failed to properly
apply state law in his case instead of a facial challenge to
Washington's sex offender laws. Dkts. 10, 12. The Court
denied both motions because, even under a liberal
interpretation of his complaint, he failed to allege an as
applied challenge. Dkts. 11, 13. The Court also explicitly
informed Enquist that he could file a motion to amend his
complaint if he wanted to assert as applied challenges.
Id. Enquist failed to file such a motion.
April 11, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing
that Enquist must bring a facial challenge against the State
and, for other reasons, Enquist failed to name proper parties
in his complaint. Dkt. 15. On June 1, 2018, the Court granted
the motion, dismissed Defendants, and granted Enquist leave
to amend his complaint. Dkt. 22.
22, 2017, Enquist filed an amended complaint against the
State. Dkt. 23. Enquist asserts that RCW 9A.44.130 violates
his constitutional right to travel and equal protection.
March 14, 2018, the State filed a motion for summary
judgment. Dkt. 36. On April 2, 2018, Enquist responded and
filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 39. On April
13, 2018, the State replied. Dkt. 42.
person living in Washington who has been found guilty of a
sex offense or kidnapping offense (“Offender”)
must register with the county sheriff and provide a variety
of information, including the address where they will be
living, place of employment, a photograph, and fingerprints.
RCW 9A.44.130(1)-(2)(a). Offenders who do not have a fixed
address must report to the sheriff's office weekly and
provide an accounting of where they stayed during the week.
Id. § (6)(b).
Offenders are not confined to any specific county. Instead,
Offenders may leave the county or state, but the Offender
must register with the local authorities when the Offender
reaches the relevant destination. In other words, transient
Offenders who leave the county in which they are registered,
and enter another county, must register with the authorities
in the new county. Id. § (4)(a)(vi). Offenders
who leave Washington State must register with the new state
and provide notice to the sheriff of the county in which they
were last registered in Washington. Id. §
(4)(a)(viii). With advanced notice to the sheriff, Offenders
may also travel outside the United States. Id.
was convicted in 1976 of two counts of first degree rape and
two counts of robbery. State v. Enquist, 163 Wn.App.
41, 44 (2011). He received a thirty-year sentence and was
released in April 2007. Id. From the date of his
release until June 2009, Enquist did not register as an
offender. Id. Enquist was transient during this
period, and, under Washington's former statute, he was
required to report weekly to the local sheriff. Id.
Enquist was convicted of failing to register. Id.
Enquist appealed the conviction arguing that the registration
statute (1) violated the ex post facto clause of the
Washington constitution, (2) facially violated his
constitutional right to travel, and (3) violated his
constitutional right to travel as applied to him.
Id. at 45-52. The Washington Court of Appeals upheld
the conviction concluding in relevant part that