Citizens for Fair Share v. STATE, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

• Citation: 117 Wash.App. 411,72 P.3d 206
• Decision Date: 01 July 2003
• Docket Number: No. 28138-4-II.,28138-4-II.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Parties: CITIZENS FOR FAIR SHARE, a nonprofit corporation, Appellant, v. STATE of Washington DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Joseph Lehman, Secretary, Jim Blodgett, Regional Administrator, Respondents.

72 P.3d 206

117 Wash.App. 411

CITIZENS FOR FAIR SHARE, a nonprofit corporation, Appellant, v. STATE of Washington DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Joseph Lehman, Secretary, Jim Blodgett, Regional Administrator, Respondents.

No. 28138-4-II.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.

July 1, 2003.

Richard D. Brady, Brady & McLean, PLLC, Tacoma, Brian Patrick McLean, Law Office of Brian P. McLean, Kent, for Appellant.

Deborah L. Cade, Olympia, for Respondents.

HUNT, C.J.

Citizens for Fair Share (Citizens) appeal the trial court's denial of injunctive relief and its grant of summary judgment to the Department of Corrections in Citizens' action against the Department for siting a Community Justice Center (CJCenter) in Tacoma's Center Street Neighborhood. Citizens argue that (1) the CJCenter is a "community-based facility" for which RCW 72.65.220 requires notice and a hearing prior to a siting decision; (2) the Due Process Clause¹ requires public hearings, like treatment of similarly situated neighborhoods, and action that is not arbitrary and capricious; (3) the Offender Accountability Act applies to the CJCenter and requires both community risk assessments and deployment of correctional officers where offenders are located; and (4) the Department failed to comply with Citizens' public disclosure requests under the Public Disclosure Act (PDA).²

We hold that (1) the CJCenter is not a "community-based facility" under RCW 72.65.220, which applies only to correctional facilities with residential components; (2) neither statute nor due process requires neighborhood notice and public hearing before the Department selects a specific CJCenter site; (3) equal protection is inapplicable to this CJCenter siting; and (4) the Department properly complied with all public disclosure requests except for its failure to state why it was not providing offenders' addresses. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of injunctive relief to Citizens and its grant of summary judgment to the Department on all claims, except for Citizens' claim that the Department failed to provide a reason for nondisclosure of offender addresses. As to this latter claim, we reverse summary judgment and remand to the trial court.

FACTS

In July 2000, the Department decided to establish a Community Justice Center in Tacoma to provide office and other space for (1) supervision of and reporting by 150 to 200 community-supervised offenders;³ (2) other DOC office functions; (3) statewide and King/Pierce County regional personnel and staff-training programs, including a safety training center with a bullet-less firing range; (4) housing statewide hearings records; and (5) community service staff, vehicles, and equipment. The CJCenter's services to offenders would include chemical dependency assessments, urinalyses, training, offender hearings, data collection, counseling, mental health referrals, transportation to and from work sites, and assignment to work crews.

Citizens object to the Center Street site because it is within one-half mile of at least three schools, 50 licensed day care facilities, a state methadone clinic, an adult residential drug treatment facility, an alcohol treatment center, two women's shelters, the Tacoma Rescue mission, and several homeless outreach programs. Citizens' experts testified that the neighborhood appears "at risk" because it has low income levels; high numbers of transients; high crime rates; and a disproportionately high number of social service clients, including drug abusers, mentally ill persons, homeless persons, and criminals.

I. SITING

The Center Street site was not the Department's first choice for the Tacoma CJCenter. The Department first considered an 8,000 square foot site on Martin Luther King, Jr. Way and a 10,000 square foot site on Tacoma Avenue South. The Department mailed notices and held meetings with various community groups concerned about siting the CJCenter at these two locations. But in 2000, the Tacoma City Council established a moratorium through March 2002 prohibiting siting Department facilities or offices in "narc zones," such as the Martin Luther King, Jr. Way and Tacoma Avenue South sites.⁴

Citizens claim that (1) a group opposed to these two sitings and an affiliated individual, Michael Hargreaves, offered to locate a new site in Tacoma's Center Street Neighborhood; and (2) Hargreaves showed the Department a 30,000 square foot site at 1015 Center Street, secured an option to purchase that building, and then bid the site to the Department. Citizens complain that the Department did not conduct hearings and collaborative meetings with them, as it had done for the other possible sites, before choosing their Center Street neighborhood as the site for new the CJCenter.

The Department counters that it met with many groups and individuals before selecting the Center Street site, and made repeated offers to meet with Citizens, which Citizens declined. In reaching its final siting decision, the Department used the Washington Department of General Administration (GA) and its leasing policy, published a general solicitation for a 30,000 foot space, received several bids, evaluated four bids with GA, accepted Hargreaves' bid for the 1015 Center Street site, and then executed a formal lease with Hargreaves. The Department asserts that its selection process was fair and prudent.

II. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

On July 31, Citizens submitted a public disclosure request to the Department, asking for offenders' addresses, addresses of current reporting facilities, Department policies for managing political opposition to siting of correctional facilities, and the effect of a CJCenter on crime rates and property values. That same day, the Department acknowledged the request and stated that it would answer within fifteen business days.

On August 17, the Department provided Citizens with (1) a list of 163 offenders who would be required to report to the CJCenter, (2) their zip codes, (3) departmental policies on site selection, and (4) a list of all reporting facilities in Pierce County. The Department did not provide the requested offender addresses, nor did it claim that this information was exempt from disclosure.

III. LAWSUIT

Citizens sued the Department, requesting declaratory relief and alleging violations of the Offender Accountability Act,⁵ competitive bidding laws,⁶ federal civil rights,⁷ the Public Disclosure Act,⁸ due process,⁹ and Washington's Administrative Procedure Act (APA).¹⁰ The trial court denied Citizens' motion for a preliminary injunction and their claims relating to the Offender Accountability Act.

The Department moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed Citizens' claims. Citizens appeal the order denying injunctive relief and summarily dismissing its Offender Accountability Act, Public Disclosure Act, and due process claims.¹¹

ANALYSIS

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings ... together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." CR 56(c). We review summary judgment de novo, viewing all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Raynor, 143 Wash.2d 469, 475, 21 P.3d 707 (2001). If reasonable minds can reach different conclusions, summary judgment is improper. Kalmas v. Wagner, 133 Wash.2d 210, 215, 943 P.2d 1369 (1997).

II. DUE PROCESS

Citizens assert a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, arguing that the Department violated their right to due process. Minimum constitutional due process is determined by considering three factors:

First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used ...; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976).

A. Adequacy of Complaint

The Department initially responds that Citizens insufficiently pleaded this claim because they failed to identify a person acting under color of state law and failed to allege a right that was violated. The Department lost a similar argument in Dean v. Lehman, 143 Wash.2d 12, 33-34, n. 9, 18 P.3d 523 (2001), in which the Supreme Court found a "sufficient basis" for an imprecise complaint under our "notice pleading" system.

Citizens reply that their complaint adequately gave the Department notice of the general nature of their claim—that the Department deprived them of "rights, privileges, and immunities" under the State and U.S. constitutions—because other parts of their complaint cite specific constitutional rights, including violations of due process based on liberty and property interests, safety, and arbitrary and capricious action. We agree. Citizens have a private interest in their "safety." See Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315-16, 319, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982)

.

Citizens' complaint gave at least as much notice of a § 1983 claim based on due process as Dean did. Thus, we consider the merits of Citizens' § 1983 due process claim.

B. Notice and Public Hearing

Citizens argue that the Department must comply with RCW 72.65.220 and provide notice and public hearings before siting a CJCenter because (1) the CJCenter is a "community based facility"; and (2) the Department's past RCW 72.65.220 compliance for CJCenter sitings requires the Department to follow the same policy for this CJCenter siting.¹²

1. "Community-based facility"

We first address whether the CJCenter is a "community-based facility," for which RCW 72.65.220(1) requires notice and public hearing. RCW 72.65.220(1) provides:

The department or a private or public entity

...