Rynearson v. Ferguson et al

Filing 62

ORDER granting 44 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

Case 3:17-cv-05531-RBL Document 62 Filed 02/22/19 Page 1 of 12

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

RICHARD L. RYNEARSON, III,

9

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11

CASE NO. C17-5531RBL
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

ROBERT FERGUSON, Attorney
General of the State of Washington, and
TINA R. ROBINSON, Prosecuting
Attorney for Kitsap County,

12
13

Defendant.
14
15
16
17
18

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Rynearson’s Renewed Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction1 [Dkt. #44]. Rynearson seeks a declaration that RCW 9.61.260(1)(b) is
unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made
applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. In this motion, Rynearson asks this

19
20
21
22
23

1

The party seeking injunctive relief bears the burden of establishing that (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2)
he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his
favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 20. Any preliminary relief “must be tailored to remedy the
specific hard alleged” and can only apply to the specific plaintiff before the Court. McCormack v. Hiedeman, 695
F.3d 1004, 1019 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009). Moreover,
“neither declaratory nor injunctive relief can directly interfere with enforcement of contested statutes or ordinances
except with respect to the particular federal plaintiffs, and the State is free to prosecute others who may violate the
statute.” McCormack, 694 F.3d at 1020 (quoting Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 931 (1975)).

24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 1

Case 3:17-cv-05531-RBL Document 62 Filed 02/22/19 Page 2 of 12

1

Court to declare 9.61.260(1)(b) facially overbroad and to enjoin the defendants from enforcing

2

this particular section as against him.

3

Rynearson first filed this motion for a preliminary injunction in July 2017. The Court

4

dismissed the suit on abstention grounds under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) in light of

5

a then-pending civil protection order case in state court. In an expedited appeal, the Ninth Circuit

6

reversed and remanded the case. Rynearson v. Ferguson, No. 17-35853, 2018 WL 4263253 (9th

7

Cir. Sept. 7, 2018). In the intervening months between the District Court decision and the Ninth

8

Circuit’s order, the Kitsap County Superior Court dismissed the stalking protective order because

9

the communication and the conduct in this case falls under the umbrella of constitutionally

10

protected speech. No. 17-2-01463-1, 2018 WL 733811 (Wash. Super. Co., Jan. 10, 2018).

11

For this renewed motion, the Court has received and reviewed the memoranda from

12

Rynearson [Dkt. #44 and #55], the memoranda from the defendants including a Motion to

13

Dismiss [Dkt. #53 and #56], the Complaint [Dkt. #1], Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier

14

Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union of Washington in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion

15

for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. #52], and Defendants’ Response to Amici Curiae Electronic

16

Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union of Washington [Dkt. #54]. The Court

17

also conducted oral argument on the issues central to this dispute. For the following reasons, the

18

Preliminary Injunction requested by Rynearson and Amici Curiae is GRANTED.

19

I. FACTS

20

Rynearson is an online author and activist who regularly writes online posts and

21

comments to the public related to civil liberties, including about police abuse and the expansion

22

of executive power in the wake of September 11. Rynearson’s writings are often critical—and

23

sometimes harshly so—of local public figures and government officials. These writings are well

24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 2

Case 3:17-cv-05531-RBL Document 62 Filed 02/22/19 Page 3 of 12

1

within the traditions of independent American political discourse, and are intended both to raise

2

the awareness of other citizens regarding the civil-liberties issues that Rynearson writes about,

3

and to hold civic and political leaders accountable to the community through pointed criticism.

4

This sort of expression is at the very heart of political speech which the First Amendment most

5

strongly protects.

6

Many of Rynearson’s online posts and comments relate to a detention provision in the

7

National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) of 2012. Specifically, Section 1021, which was

8

found for authorizing the (unconstitutional) detention of American citizens without trial under

9

the laws of war. See Hedges v. Obama, 890 F. Supp. 2d 424, 458 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), rev’d for lack

10

of jurisdiction, 724 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2013). Given his interest in indefinite-detention issues,

11

Rynearson became interested years ago in public and civic organizations in the Seattle area that

12

memorialize and seek to present the lessons of the Japanese-American internment in World War

13

II, such as the Bainbridge Island Japanese-American Exclusion Memorial and Seattle-based

14

Densho.

15

In the past, Rynearson has regularly posted on public Facebook pages criticizing the

16

leadership of public and civic organizations, either because their leaders failed to condemn the

17

NDAA or because they vocally and strongly support politicians who voted for or signed the

18

NDAA, such as Governor Jay Inslee and former President Barack Obama. For example, in

19

February 2017, Rynearson wrote a series of public posts on Facebook criticizing Clarence

20

Moriwaki, the founder of the Bainbridge Island Japanese-American Exclusion Memorial

21

(“Memorial”), for failing to criticize Governor Inslee and President Obama for voting for/signing

22

the NDAA. The thrust of Rynearson’s posts was that Moriwaki should be removed from his role

23

as board member and de facto spokesperson for the Memorial because Moriwaki used the

24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 3

Case 3:17-cv-05531-RBL Document 62 Filed 02/22/19 Page 4 of 12

1

lessons of the internment, and his role with the Memorial, to criticize Republican politicians

2

(chiefly, President Trump) in many media articles or appearances related to the Memorial, but

3

failed to criticize Democratic politicians.

4

Rynearson’s posts often include invective, ridicule, and harsh language (but no profanity,

5

obscenity, or threats) intended to criticize or call into question the actions and motives of these

6

civic leaders and other public figures. He reasonably fears prosecution under the cyberstalking

7

statute for such posts. In fact, the Bainbridge Island Police Department referred a police report to

8

the Kitsap County Prosecutor finding probable cause for cyberstalking based on such critical

9

posts to and about Moriwaki. The prosecutor has not brought charges, but sent an email stating

10

that she would revisit her decision regarding charges based on Rynearson’s future behavior,

11

including his future speech.

12

For a period of time, from March 2017 to January 2018, Rynearson was also subject to a

13

civil protection order imposed by the Bainbridge Island Municipal Court based on posts critical

14

of Moriwaki. Moriwaki v. Rynearson, No. 17-2-01463-1, 2018 WL 733811, at *12 (Wash. Sup.

15

Ct. Jan. 10, 2018). The cyberstalking statute was one of the statutes invoked by the Municipal

16

Court in imposing the protection order. Moriwaki, 2018 WL 733811, at *5. The order imposed

17

sharp limits on Rynearson’s speech, such as barring the use of Moriwaki’s name in the titles or

18

domain names of webpages. The order has now been vacated on the ground that it was

19

impermissibly based on Rynearson’s constitutionally-protected speech. Moriwaki, 2018 WL

20

733811, at *12.

21
22
23
24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 4

Case 3:17-cv-05531-RBL Document 62 Filed 02/22/19 Page 5 of 12

1

II. ISSUES

2

A. In Light of Rynearson’s Exoneration by the State Court of Violating the Cyberstalking
Statute, Does He Have Standing to Challenge Washington’s Law?

3
4

B. Is the Cyberstalking Statute Overbroad and Unconstitutional Ruiring Injunctive
Relief?
III. DECISION

5
6
7

A. Rynearson Has Standing to Challenge Washington’s Cyberstalking Statute.
On January 10, 2018 the Kitsap County Superior Court Reversed and Vacated the

8

Municipal Court’s decision to grant the stalking protection order and remanded the matter back

9

to the Municipal Court for entry of an order of dismissal. Despite the order exonerating

10

Rynearson in the State Court, he nevertheless filed this renewed motion for Preliminary

11

Injunction. The defendants in this matter argue that Rynearson lacks standing to challenge

12

Washington’s Cyberstalking Statute. They point out that the U.S. Constitution limits the judicial

13

power of federal courts to “cases” and “controversies.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94 (1968).

14

“Standing to bring a claim is a controlling element in the definition of a case or controversy.”

15

Alaska Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Feldman, 504 F.3d 840, 848 (9th Cir. 2007).

16

“Standing requires proof (1) that the plaintiff suffered an injury in fact that is ‘concrete and

17

particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical;’ (2) of a causal

18

connection between that injury and the complained-of conduct; and (3) that a favorable decision

19

will likely redress the alleged injury.” Id. (quoting Lujan v. Defs. Of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-

20

61 (1992)). The plaintiff must establish a “personal stake in the outcome” so as to assure

21

“concrete adverseness” in the controversy. Baker v. Cerr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962).

22

The Supreme Court has adopted a “relaxed approach“ to standing when First Amendment

23

overbreadth is asserted, but it has done so only upon a showing that the plaintiff is “immediately

24

in danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of an [executive or legislative] action.” Alaska
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 5

Case 3:17-cv-05531-RBL Document 62 Filed 02/22/19 Page 6 of 12

1

Right to Life, 504 F.3d at 851. When the plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of a statute

2

because it may “unconstitutionally chill” the First Amendment rights of others, the plaintiff must

3

still satisfy the “rigid constitutional requirement” of having a personal, credible injury or threat

4

of injury from the challenged statute. Lopez v. Gandaele, 630 F.3d 775, 785 (9th Cir. 2010).

5

Rynearson argues that he can meet the necessary requirements of standing because (1) he

6

is suffering “the constitutionally recognized injury of self-censorship,” Cal. Pro-Life Council,

7

Inc. v. Getman, 328 F.3d 1088, 1095 (9th Cir. 2003), (2) his intended speech arguably falls within

8

the Statute’s reach, which established a “well-founded fear that the law will be enforced,” Id.,

9

and (3) enjoining the local prosecution and the Attorney General would redress his injury. If the

10

plaintiff’s intended speech arguably falls within the Statute’s reach, then a well-founded “fear of

11

prosecution will . . . inure.” Cal. Pro-Life Council, 328 F.3d at 1095.

12

For the reasons given in the following section, Rynearson’s intended speech at least

13

arguably falls within the Cyberstalking Statute’s reach, which is enough to establish a well-

14

founded fear of prosecution and that plaintiff is suffering an injury-in-fact that confers standing.

15

B. RCW 9.61.260(1) is Unconstitutional and Overbroad and Requires Injunctive Relief.

16

In 2004, Washington enacted one of the first state statutes directly criminalizing

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

cyberstalking. The statute provides:
A person is guilty of cyberstalking if he or she, with intent to
harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person, and
under circumstances not constituting telephone harassment, makes
an electronic communication to such other person or a third party:
(a) Using any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words,
images, or language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd
or lascivious act;
(b) Anonymously or repeatedly whether or not conversation
occurs; or

24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 6

Case 3:17-cv-05531-RBL Document 62 Filed 02/22/19 Page 7 of 12

(c) Threatening to inflict injury on the person or property of the
person called or any member of his or her family or household.

1
2

WASH. REV. CODE § 9.61.260(1)(2018).
3
Rynearson’s suit and motion target RCW 9.61.260(1)(b). He rightly argues that
4
9.61.260(1)(b) criminalizes plainly protected speech under the First Amendment. Section
5
9.61.260(1)(b) provides that a “person is guilty of cyberstalking if he or she, with intent to
6
harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person, . . . makes an electronic
7
communication to such other person or a third party . . . anonymously or repeatedly whether or
8
not conversation occurs.” (emphasis added).
9
The statute separately criminalizes electronic speech that contains “any lewd, lascivious,
10
indecent, or obscene words, images, or language,” 9.61.260(1)(a), or that “threatens to inflict
11
injury on the person or property of the person called or any member of his or her family or
12
household,” 9.61.260(1)(c).
13
Over the years, the Supreme Court has enumerated certain “well-defined and narrowly
14
limited’ classes of speech that remain unprotected by the First Amendment. See Chaplinsky v.
15
New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-72 (1949). The unprotected speech is limited to, (a)
16
obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476; (b) defamation, Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S.
17
250, 254-255 (1952); (c) fraud, Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer
18
Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976); (d) incitement, Brandenbury v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-49
19
(1969); (e) true threats, Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969); and (f) speech integral to
20
criminal conduct, Giboney v. Expire Storate & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949). Speech that
21
does not fall into these exceptions remains protected. See United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460
22
(2010).
23
24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 7

Case 3:17-cv-05531-RBL Document 62 Filed 02/22/19 Page 8 of 12

Section 9.61.260(1)(b)’s breadth—by the plain meaning of its words—includes protected

1
2

speech that is not exempted from protection by any of the recognized areas just described.

3

Section 9.61.260(1)(b) criminalizes a large range of non-obscene, non-threatening speech, based

4

only on (1) purportedly bad intent and (2) repetition or anonymity. The terms “harass, intimidate,

5

torment, or embarrass” are not defined by the statute. When statutory terms are undefined,

6

Washington courts generally give them their ordinary meaning, including the dictionary

7

definition. The dictionary definition of “harass” includes “to vex, trouble, or annoy continually

8

or chronically.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged (online ed. 2017),

9

and the meaning of “torment” incudes “to cause worry or vexation to,” Id. “Embarrass” means

10

“to cause to experience a state of self-conscious distress,” Id. As a result even public criticisms

11

of public figures and public officials could be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment if

12

they are seen as intended to persistently “vex” or “annoy” those public figures, or to embarrass

13

them.

14

The defendants rely on two unpublished state court opinions in which the judges

15

successfully navigated the constitutional challenges presented by Washington’s cyberstalking

16

statute by differentiating between protected and unprotected speech under the First Amendment.

17

In the first case, State v. Stanley, 2017 WL 3868480 (Wash. Ct. Apps., Sept. 5, 2017), the Court

18

affirmed a criminal conviction without wholly and directly dealing with the unconstitutionality

19

plank of the appeal. In the second case, the Kitsap County Superior Court ruled that Rynearson’s

20

speech about Moriwaki was protected, and therefore that the cyberstalking statute should never

21

have been employed in support of a stalking protection order against him. Moriwaki v.

22

Rynearson, 2018 WL 733811 (2018). In Stanley, the conduct or speech (actual threat) fell clearly

23

within the sphere of unprotected speech; Moriwaki demonstrates why the speech was protected.

24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 8

Case 3:17-cv-05531-RBL Document 62 Filed 02/22/19 Page 9 of 12

1

There is a third scenario. The Municipal Court in Moriwaki relied on the plain meaning

2

of the statute and issued a protection order in Moriwaki’s favor, and against Rynearson. It found

3

probable cause to enter a stalking protection order on the basis of anonymous speech intended

4

“to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass.” RCW 9.61.260(1)(b) (emphasis added). The

5

opportunity for repeating this “plain meaning” view of the statute to criminalize protected speech

6

calls out for a prompt curative response.

7

The Washington Court of Appeals in Washington v. Stanley was presented with a

8

criminal convicted of nine counts of felony cyberstalking after making true threats to several

9

women. On appeal, Stanley challenged the cyberstalking statute as unconstitutionally overbroad

10

and vague in violation of the First Amendment. The Court’s analysis focused on the criminal

11

intent language in 9.61.260(1): “Harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person.”

12

Stanley argued that the statute is facially overbroad to the extent that it criminalizes

13

communications made with intent to “harass” or “embarrass.” The Court of Appeals looked to

14

analogous statutes and reviewing court decisions to conclude that the term “harass” is not

15

unconstitutionally vague. As for the “intent to embarrass” provision of the cyberstalking statute,

16

the Court was troubled by the breadth of the language:

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Although the telephone harassment statute cases have held that the
intent to embarrass is not unconstitutionally overbroad,
contemporary electronically communication, social media, and
internet postings are broad in scope. A variety of political and
social commentary, including caustic criticism of public figures,
may be swept up as an intent to embarrass someone while using
rough language. Stanley’s opening brief was filed prior to our
Supreme Court’s decision in Trey-M. He emphasized the true
threat issue. The briefs contain a limited discussion of free speech
in the context of electronic communications with intent to
embarrass. In view of the limited briefing, we do not decide
whether the intent to embarrass in the cyberstalking statute renders
the statute unconstitutionally overbroad. Even assuming the term is

24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 9

Case 3:17-cv-05531-RBL Document 62 Filed 02/22/19 Page 10 of 12

unconstitutionally overbroad, any error is harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt in this setting.

1
2

Id. * 9. The “setting” referred to is actual threats to kill the female cyberstalking victims. In the
3
setting of a true threat of harassment, the speech is not protected by the First Amendment. State
4
v. Trey M, 186 Wash.2d 884 (2016).
5
In contrast to the controlling facts of Stanley, the circumstances surrounding the
6
Rynearson stalking protective order persuaded the Superior Court judge to reverse the Municipal
7
Court and remand the matter back to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the matter. The
8
Superior Court correctly categorized Rynearson’s speech as protected under the First
9
Amendment. He reached his conclusions in large measure on the persuasive analysis from U.S. v.
10
Cassidy, 814 F.Supp.2d 574 (Md. 2011) which declared a similar federal statute unconstitutional
11
as applied.
12
The federal stalking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2261 A(2) (criminalized a course of conduct,
13
with intent to harass or cause substantial emotional distress, by use of interactive computer
14
service and in fact causes emotional distress to a person. The District Court traced the long
15
history of protecting “anonymous” and uncomfortable and emotionally distressing speech:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

From our nation’s founding, there has been a tradition of
protecting anonymous speech, particularly anonymous political or
religious speech. See Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Village
of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 162, 122 S.Ct. 2080, 153 L.Ed.2d 205
(2002); Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 577 F.3d 240, 248
(4th Cir. 2009) (“Courts have typically protected anonymity under
the First Amendment when claimed in connection with literary,
religious, or political speech.”) For example, the Federalist Papers,
written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, but
published under the pseudonym “Publius,” are in and of
themselves the best example of anonymous political speech. See
McIntrye v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 343 n. 6, 115
S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995). And the opponents of the
federalists, the anti-federalists, also used pseudonyms to publish
their views anonymously. Id. In 1960, the Supreme Court

24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 10

Case 3:17-cv-05531-RBL Document 62 Filed 02/22/19 Page 11 of 12

recognized the importance of this type of core anonymous speech
stating that “leaflets, brochures and even books have played an
important role in the progress of mankind [as] [p]ersecuted groups
and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to
criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not
at all.” Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 65, 80 S.Ct. 536, 4
L.Ed.2d 559 (U.S. 1960). This is because anonymous speech
allows individuals to express themselves freely without “fear of
economic or official retaliation . . . [or] concern about social
ostracism.” McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 341-42, 115 S.Ct. 1511.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Id 581.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently classified emotionally distressing or

8

outrageous speech as protected, especially where that speech touches on matters of political,

9

religious or public concern. This is because “in public debate our own citizens must tolerate

10

insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide ‘adequate breathing space’ to the

11

freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” See Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 322, (1988)

12

(citing Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 56, (1988)); See also New York Times Co.

13

v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, (1964); Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, (2011) (Because the

14

emotionally distressing “speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech

15

is entitled to ‘special protection’ under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted

16

simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt”).

17

The Court went on to find the speech to be protected, content-based which could not

18

survive strict scrutiny. Because the provision in question focused only on the content of the

19

speech and the direct impact that speech had on viewers, the provision was a content-based

20

restriction. United States v. Playboy Entm’t Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 80-3, 813 (2000). The District

21

Court declared the provision unconstitutional as applied but deferred the question of facial

22

unconstitutionality.

23
24
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 11

Case 3:17-cv-05531-RBL Document 62 Filed 02/22/19 Page 12 of 12

1

The State Court in Rynearson limited the decision to the question of protected versus

2

unprotected speech. The Court resolved the case or controversy before it by correctly

3

determining that the speech was protected and that it did not violate the statute’s intent.

4

The case before this Court is a different one. Here the dispute is four square about the

5

constitutionality of RCW 9.61.260(1)(b). Based on the record before the Court it is highly likely

6

that in the final analysis the Court will declare the provision is unconstitutional and therefore

7

unenforceable.

8
9
10
11
12
13

Anonymous speech uttered or typed with the intent to embarrass a person as here, is
protected speech. The plain meaning of the italicized words render 9.61.260(1)(b)
unconstitutional.
For the reasons given here, this Court concludes that RCW 9.61.260(1)(b) is facially
unconstitutional.2
Dated this 22nd day of February, 2019.

14
15

A

16

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

17

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

2
To prevail in a facial challenge based on the First Amendment, a plaintiff must either demonstrate that “no set of
circumstances exists under which [the regulation] would be valid,” or that “a substantial number of its applications
are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statue’s plainly legitimate sweep.” United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S.
460, 472-73 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 12