Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Enquist v. State

United States District Court, W.D. Washington

May 17, 2018

GERALD D. ENQUIST, Plaintiff,
v.
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 TRIAL DATE

          BENJAMIN H. SETTLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This 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:

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On 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. Id.

         On 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.

         On 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.

         On June 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. Id.

         On 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.

         II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         A. Washington's Statute

         Every 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).

         Registered 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. § (3).

         B. Enquist

         Enquist 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.