ANTHONY LEWIS V. KING COUNTY, No. 17-35527 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 29 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTHONY EUGENE LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-35527 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01112-JLR v. MEMORANDUM* KING COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Anthony Eugene Lewis appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims related to Washington’s sex offender registration requirements. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 607, 610 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lewis’s Eighth Amendment claim because Washington’s sex offender registration statute does not impose criminal punishment. See State v. Ward, 869 P.2d 1062, 1068-69 (Wash. 1994) (Washington’s sex offender registry serves a regulatory, rather than punitive, purpose). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lewis’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and substantive due process claims because Lewis failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the sex offender registration statute is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. See United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999, 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2012) (statute that does not burden a protected class or a fundamental right will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest); Ward, 869 P.2d at 1077 (sex offender registration statute advances the valid state interest of assisting law enforcement). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lewis’s Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim because Lewis failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the registration requirement was not based on his prior criminal conviction. See Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d at 1014 (no additional due process required where the requirement to register is based 2 17-35527 solely on prior conviction). AFFIRMED. 3 17-35527

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.