Lewis v. US Justice Department et al

Filing 59

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 55 . The court grants King County's motion for summary judgment 45 and dismisses this action with prejudice. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) cc: plaintiff via the USPS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

ANTHONY EUGENE LEWIS,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff,

11

CASE NO. C16-1112JLR

v.
12
13

KING COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

I.

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation of United

17

States Magistrate Judge James Donohue (R&R (Dkt. # 55)), and Plaintiff Anthony

18

Eugene Lewis’s objections thereto (Obj. (Dkt. # 56)). Having carefully reviewed the

19

foregoing materials, along with all other relevant documents, and the governing law, the

20

court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 55) and DISMISSES Mr.

21

Lewis’s complaint with prejudice.

22

ORDER - 1

1

II.

BACKGROUND

2

On August 8, 2016, the court granted Mr. Lewis leave to proceed in forma

3

pauperis in this action and directed the Clerk to file Mr. Lewis’s complaint without the

4

prepayment of fees. (See IFP Ord. (Dkt. # 7); Compl. (Dkt. # 8).) On September 16,

5

2016, the court granted Mr. Lewis leave to file an amended complaint and on October 3,

6

2016, directed the United States Marshal to serve Mr. Lewis’s complaint on Defendant

7

King County. 1 (See 9/16/16 Order (Dkt. # 16); Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 19); 10/3/16 Order

8

(Dkt. # 23).) Mr. Lewis alleges a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that King

9

County violated his civil rights by requiring him to comply with Washington’s sex

10

offender registration and notification statute (“SORNS”), RCW 9A.44.128-.148. (Am.

11

Compl.) Mr. Lewis complains that King County’s enforcement of the statute subjects

12

him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United

13

States Constitution, results in discrimination against him because it precludes him from

14

obtaining low income housing, prevents him from applying for college due to

15

embarrassment and humiliation, and causes him ongoing mental, physical, and spiritual

16

pain and suffering because he must rely on state and federal assistance to survive. (Id. at

17

3-5.)

18
19
20
21
22

1

Although Mr. Lewis identifies five separate defendants, the court agrees with
Magistrate Judge Donohue that King County is the only proper defendant in this action. (See
R&R at 2-3, n.1.) Mr. Lewis also names King County Department of Executive Services and
King County Sheriff’s Offices, but these organizations are not subject to suit because they are
entities of King County. See Nolan v. Snohomish Cty., 802 P.2d 792, 796 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990)
(“[I]n a legal action involving a county, the county itself is the only legal entity capable of suing
and being sued.”). Mr. Lewis also names two statutory provisions as defendants, but statutes are
not subject to suit. (See R&R at 3, n.1.)

ORDER - 2

1

On December 13, 2016, Mr. Lewis filed a motion for summary judgment. (Lewis

2

Mot. (Dkt. # 41).) On January 3, 2017, King County filed a response opposing Mr.

3

Lewis’s motion. (KC Resp. (Dkt. # 44).) On the same day, King County filed a cross

4

motion for summary judgment (KC Mot. (Dkt. # 45)), which Mr. Lewis opposed (Lewis

5

Resp. (Dkt. # 51)).

6

On April 18, 2017, Magistrate Judge Donohue issued a report and

7

recommendation granting King County’s motion for summary judgment, denying Mr.

8

Lewis’s motion, and dismissing Mr. Lewis’s action with prejudice. (See R&R at 1, 11.)

9

First, Judge Donohue concluded that King County was entitled to summary judgment on

10

Mr. Lewis’s claim that the registration requirements of SORNS constitute cruel and

11

unusual punishment because “[t]he Washington Supreme Court has held that ‘[w]hile the

12

requirement to register as a sex offender may indeed be burdensome,’ registration does

13

not constitute criminal punishement.” (R&R at 7 (quoting State v. Ward, 869 P.2d 1062,

14

1068 (Wash. 1994)).) Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Donohue concluded that King

15

County is entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Lewis’s Eighth Amendment claims. (Id.

16

at 8.)

17

Second, Magistrate Judge Donohue found that sex offenders are not a suspect or

18

protected class and SORNS passes rational review because SORNS has a legitimate

19

nonpunitive purpose of public safety, which is advanced by alerting the public to the risk

20

of sex offenders in a community. (Id. at 8-9.) As such, Magistrate Donohue concluded

21

that SORNS does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States

22

Constitution and King County is entitled to summary judgment on this claim. (Id. at 9.)

ORDER - 3

1

Finally, Magistrate Judge Donohue found that SORNS did not violate Mr. Lewis’s

2

substantive or procedural due process rights. (Id. at 9-11.) Specifically with respect to

3

substantive due process, Magistrate Judge Donohue found that rational basis review

4

applies because SORNS does not implicate a fundamental right and for the reasons stated

5

above passes constitutional scrutiny. (Id. at 9-10.) Regarding procedural due process,

6

Magistrate Donohue found that SORNS does not create a procedural due process

7

violation when the registration and notification requirements turn solely on an offender’s

8

conviction for which the convicted offender has “already had a procedurally safeguarded

9

opportunity to contest.” (Id. at 10 (quoting Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S.

10
11

1, 7-8 (2003)).)
Mr. Lewis filed a timely objection to Magistrate Judge Donohue’s report and

12

recommendation. (Obj. (Dkt. # 56); see also Lewis Decl. (Dkt. # 57).) King County

13

filed a response to Mr. Lewis’s objections. (KC Resp. to Obj. (Dkt. # 58).) The court

14

now reviews Magistrate Judge Donohue’s report and recommendation and Mr. Lewis’s

15

objections thereto.

16

III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

17

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge’s report and

18

recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “The district judge must

19

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly

20

objected to.” Id. “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,

21

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

22

The court reviews de novo those portions of the report and recommendation to which

ORDER - 4

1

specific written objection is made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

2

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). “The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review

3

the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but

4

not otherwise.” Id.

5

his complaint and objections liberally. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cty., 339 F.3d 920,

6

925 (9th Cir. 2003).

7

Because Mr. Lewis is proceeding pro se, this court must interpret

IV.

DISCUSSION

8

Mr. Lewis’s objections do not raise any novel issues that Magistrate Judge

9

Donohue’s Report and Recommendation did not address. (See generally Obj.) First, Mr.

10

Lewis fails to establish that the registration requirements under SORNS constitute cruel

11

and unusual punishment. (See generally Obj.) Indeed, as King County points out, courts

12

have resolved this issue to the contrary. (KC Resp. to Obj. at 2 (citing Ward, 869 P.2d at

13

1068).)

14

Second, Mr. Lewis fails to establish that the registration requirement of SORNS

15

violates the Equal Protection Clause by limiting Mr. Lewis’s eligibility for low income

16

housing. (See generally Obj.) SORNS is rationally related to the legitimate state purpose

17

of public safety. See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 102-03 (2003) (upholding Alaska’s sex

18

offender registration and notification statute); see also Ward, 869 P.2d at 1077 (holding

19

that the state has a legitimate interest in assisting local law enforcement by requiring sex

20

offender registration). Mr. Lewis offers no authority to rebut this case law. (See

21

generally Obj.)

22

ORDER - 5

1

Finally, Mr. Lewis fails to establish that the registration requirement of SORNS

2

violates either substantive or procedural due process. Sex offender registration and

3

notification do not implicate fundamental rights. (See R&R at 9-10 (citing multiple

4

cases).) SORNS survives rational basis review because it is rationally related to the

5

legitimate state purpose of public safety. Thus, Mr. Lewis cannot demonstrate a

6

substantive due process violation. Mr. Lewis also cannot show any violation of

7

procedural due process because SORNS’s registration and notification requirements turn

8

solely on Mr. Lewis’s conviction, which Mr. Lewis had a “procedurally safeguarded

9

opportunity to contest.” See Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 538 U.S. at 7-8; see also United

10

States v. Fernandes, 636 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Defendant was afforded due

11

process in his criminal proceeding and chose to plead guilty to a sex offense. Requiring

12

Defendant to register as a sex offender does not violate his right to procedural due

13

process.”). Mr. Lewis is not entitled to any additional process than the due process he

14

received at the time of his conviction.

15

In sum, the court has thoroughly examined the record before it and finds

16

Magistrate Judge Donohue’s reasoning persuasive in light of that record. Mr. Lewis

17

essentially reargues the arguments he made to Magistrate Judge Donohue, and the court

18

independently rejects Mr. Lewis’s arguments for the same reasons as Magistrate Judge

19

Donohue.

20
21

V.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ORDERS as follows:

22

ORDER - 6

1
2

(1) The court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 55) in its
entirety;

3

(2) The court GRANTS King County’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 45);

4

(3) The court DISMISSES this action with prejudice; and

5

(4) The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send copies of this Order to Mr. Lewis,

6
7

counsel for King County, and Magistrate Judge Donohue.
Dated this 14th day of June, 2017.

8
9

A

10

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 7