Bartz v. State
| Decision Date | 12 February 2013 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 42478–9–II, 42485–1–II.,s. 42478–9–II, 42485–1–II. |
| Citation | 173 Wash.App. 522,297 P.3d 737 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | George BARTZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Washington DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS PUBLIC DISCLOSURE UNIT, Respondent. George Bartz, Appellant, v. State of Washington Department Of Corrections Public Disclosure Unit, Respondent. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
George Bartz, (Appearing Pro Se), Monroe, WA, for Appellant.
Candie M. Dibble, Office of the Attorney General, Spokane, Ohad Michael Lowy, Attorney General's Office, Olympia, WA, for Respondent.
PUBLISHED IN PART OPINION
¶ 1 George Bartz appeals the superior court's Order of Findings in his first Public Records Act (PRA) 1 complaint and its Findings and Order of Dismissal in his second PRA complaint. He argues that the superior court erred in ruling that (1) the Department of Corrections (DOC) had complied with his public records requests, (2) his second complaint was unnecessary to obtain the information requested, (3) the PRA's statute of limitations barred his second complaint, and (4) his second complaint was a “frivolous” action for the purposes of RCW 4.24.430.2 He furtherargues that the superior court erred in dismissing with prejudice his second complaint. We affirm the superior court's findings related to Bartz's first complaint and its dismissal of his second complaint. But we reverse the superior court's determination that his second complaint was “frivolous” and that it was a “strike” for purposes of RCW 4.24.430.3 Clerk's Papers (CP) at 37.
¶ 2 George Bartz is an inmate in DOC custody who filed three public records requests with DOC under the PRA. He later filed two superior court complaints based on what he perceived to be DOC's incomplete or improper responses to his PRA requests. The superior court ruled that DOC had complied with Bartz's requests and that the statute of limitations barred his second complaint.
¶ 3 On June 12, 2009, Bartz filed his first public records request with DOC's Public Disclosure Unit (PDU), requesting six groups of documents relating to inmate personal clothing. Specifically, Bartz requested: (1) all documents “used by Eldon Vail, Secretary DOC, in his references to saving the Department ‘six figures' by taking away personal clothing from inmates”; (2) all documents relating to the maintenance costs of washing machines used by inmates for personal clothing; (3) all documents relating to projected cost increases of “doing laundry for inmates after personal clothing is taken”; (4) all documents that show the costs of laundry services for 2007 and 2008; (5) all documents that show actual or projected cost of providing inmates with “sweat shirts, sweat pants, [pajamas], night gowns, bathrobes, shorts and any other new clothing items the Department intends to issue inmates”; and (6) all documents that show the “proposed cost of fighting possible litigation due to the implementation of the proposed matrix change.” 4 CP at 9.
¶ 4 Twelve days later, on June 24, DOC assigned Bartz's PRA request tracking number PDU–7362. Approximately two weeks later, DOC sent Bartz a letter stating that it had gathered 250 pages for the first installment and that it would send these pages to Bartz once he sent the $52.07 payment. Bartz responded to DOC by letter on July 13, (1) taking exception to DOC's “piece-meal” response and high number of pages, (2) sending no money to pay for the copies ready in the first installment, and (3) explaining that he would “await [DOC's] response ... and then submit the funds.” CP at 64. DOC responded to Bartz's letter 5 by offering to deduct $18.09 from the outstanding balance on his claim (PDU–7362), leaving $33.98 as the total owed. Bartz then sent DOC a check for $33.98, which DOC received on August 24. That same day, DOC sent Bartz the first installment of the requested records.
¶ 5 Also on August 24, DOC sent Bartz a letter stating that, in response to the second half of his request, it had located 231 pages; DOC also asked for payment of $52.45. Bartz responded in a letter, complaining that the documents in his first installment were not complete, that they were full of duplicates, and that he would file a tort claim. Nevertheless, Bartz sent payment for the documents responding to the second half of his request, again complaining about the first installment and stating his intention to file a lawsuit. On September 9, DOC sent Bartz the second installment of the records, informing him that its response to his PRA request was complete.
¶ 6 Bartz uses glucosamine/chondroitin to relieve pain from osteoarthritis in his knees. In 2005, DOC stopped providing the glucosamine/chondroitin supplement to inmates. Despite DOC's response to Bartz's inquiries that glucosamine/chondroitin supplements would be added back to the inmate store at some point, it had not happened by fall 2009. On October 4, 2009, Bartz filed a second public records request with DOC about the availability of glucosamine/chondroitin in the inmate store, seeking: (1) “all documents, in the form of emails, faxes, letters, or [memos]. dealing with the inclusion of the herbal supplement, [g]lucosamine/[c]hondroitin as a salable item by the [i]nmate [s]tores, under the jurisdiction of DOC, by any and all persons employed by DOC”; and (2) “all documents, in the form of emails, faxes, letters, [memos] or policies relating to the sale of ‘oils' by inmate stores.” CP at 154.
¶ 7 DOC assigned this PRA request tracking number PDU–8623. DOC sent Bartz notice that it had located 66 pages of responsive records and that it would send the records once he sent payment of $15.61. Bartz sent payment on December 22, 2009; DOC sent the documents on January 4, 2010.
¶ 8 On January 8, Bartz sent a letter to DOC, (1) alleging that his second records request was incomplete because he had in his possession “emails” between two DOC employees 6 that were not included in the documents he had received, and (2) complaining that he also had received some duplicate documents. CP at 165. DOC responded, asking Bartz to supply the names of the staff and the dates of the missing emails so it could perform a search. Bartz refused to provide any identifying information about the staff or the requested emails. On January 28, DOC responded to Bartz again by setting out his request and informing him that, although the email strings he possessed had similar information, the pages were not duplicates. According to DOC, it did not receive any more contact from Bartz about this request.7
¶ 9 Two weeks after Bartz filed his second PRA request with DOC (October 4, 2009), he filed a third public records request on October 22, broadly outlining four groups of information that he sought about tort claims filed against DOC. Specifically, he requested (1) “all documents/forms relating to TORT claims filed by any inmate within DOC for the years 2007 to date of this letter, that relate to personal clothing claims”; (2) “all documents, in any form, that relate to the cost of the research done to validate TORT claims addressed in GROUP ONE, and the amount of compensation paid on all valid claims, if it is not listed on the claims form”; (3) information about “the total number of claims investigated under GROUP ONE.Documents relating to claims found invalid are not requested, nor wanted, just the number of claims investigated”; and (4) CP at 12. He also asked DOC to redact information to ensure no duplication of pages. On October 30, DOC assigned his claim tracking number PDU–8827.
¶ 10 Soon after, DOC sent a letter to Bartz, informing him that his request had generated 1,193 documents, some of which contained information about lawsuits and some of which did not; DOC asked Bartz to clarify whether he wanted only the lawsuit-related documents or all the documents. Bartz responded in a letter, clarifying that he did “not desire actual legal filings made in request for TORT claims, rather only the total number of claims filed during the period requested; budget numbers used to examine and research those claims; fees paid for adjudication and the names of lawyers and their affiliation those lawyers are associated with or law firms they belong to.” CP at 93.
¶ 11 In a separate letter, DOC responded to Bartz that it did not track the information that he sought,8 but it offered to send what documents it had. Bartz replied, asking for the documents available from DOC and a bill for the records. On January 12, 2010, DOC responded that it had 176 pages that needed reviewing for possible PRA exemptions and. that Bartz would receive more information about the status of his request within 35 business days. Bartz replied on January 15, unsatisfied with the 35 business days quoted; he threatened legal action if DOC did not follow the “statute.” CP at 102. DOC responded on January 27, reiterating that the documents needed reviewing for possible redactions; DOC also provided Bartz with an address if he wished to appeal.
¶ 12 On January 31, Bartz sent an appeal to DOC, stating that the offered time frame did not comply with chapter 42.56 RCW. DOC responded on February 18, informing him that the five-business-day limit was only for acknowledgement of the request, not for fulfillment of the request. The letter told Bartz to expect further communication on or before March 4, 2010. Bartz received a letter on March 4, informing him that DOC needed another 15 business days for further review.
¶ 13 On March 9, DOC sent Bartz a letter notifying him that the 176 pages were ready and that it would send him the pages when he sent his payment of $40.10. The letter also informed Bartz that DOC would notify him when another installment was ready. On March 12, Bartz sent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKee v. Wash. State Dep't of Corr.
...it took no further action after the offender failed to respond to a request for clarification. Bartz v. Dep't of Corr. Pub. Disclosure Unit, 173 Wn. App. 522, 532-33 n.10, 297 P.3d 737 (2013). Coyote Ridge went further and allowed McKee access to his central file. We review findings of fact......
-
Mckee v. Washington State Department of Corrections
...offender failed to respond to a request for clarification. Bartz v. Dep 't of Corr. Pub. Disclosure Unit, 173 Wn.App. 522, 532-33 n.10, 297 P.3d 737 (2013). Coyote Ridge went further and allowed McKee access to his central file. We review findings of fact under a substantial evidence standa......
-
White v. City of Lakewood
...42.56.550(6) was then triggered by the City's production of the responsive documents. Bartz v. Dep't of Corr. Pub. Disclosure Unit , 173 Wash.App. 522, 536, 538, 297 P.3d 737, review denied , 177 Wash.2d 1024, 309 P.3d 504 (2013). Therefore, whether White's claims relating to his second req......
-
Gale v. City of Seattle
...a second search that produced additional responsive documents. Bartz v. State Dep't of Corr. Pub. Disclosure Unit, 173 Wn.App. 522, 297 P.3d 737, review denied, 177 Wn.2d 1024 (2013), controls. Bartz informed the Department of Corrections (DOC) that its response to his PRA request was incom......
-
Table of Cases
...10.2(3)(c)(iii), 10.2(3)(c)(iii), 11.2(3), 17.2(1), 17.3(1)(a) Bartz v. State Dep't of Corr. Pub. Disclosure Unit, 173 Wn.App. 522, 297 P.3d 737, review denied, 177 Wn.2d 1024 (2013): 16.3(6)(c) Beal v. City of Seattle, 150 Wn.App. 865, 209 P.3d 872 (2009): 5.1(1), 5.1(2), 5.2(1), 5.2(1)(b)......