Civil Survival Project v. State
| Decision Date | 28 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 84015-1-I |
| Citation | 520 P.3d 1066 |
| Parties | The CIVIL SURVIVAL PROJECT, individually and on behalf of its Members and Clients, and Irene Slagle, Christina Zawaideh, Julia Reardon, Adam Kravitz, Laura Yarbrough, and Deighton Boyce, individually and on behalf of the Proposed Plaintiff Class, Appellants, v. STATE of Washington, individually, and King County and Snohomish County, individually and on behalf of the Proposed Defendant Class, Respondents, Adams County, Asotin County, Benton County, Chelan County, Clallam County, Clark County, Columbia County, Cowlitz County, Douglas County, Ferry County, Franklin County, Garfield County, Grant County, Grays Harbor County, Island County, Jefferson County, Kitsap County, Kittitas County, Klickitat County, Lewis County, Lincoln County, Mason County, Okanogan County, Pacific County, Pend Oreille County, Pierce County, San Juan County, Skagit County, Skamania County, Spokane County, Stevens County, Thurston County, Wahkiakum County, Walla Walla County, Whatcom County, Whitman County, and Yakima County, individually and as putative Defendant Class Members, Defendants. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Michael Craig Subit, Frank Freed Subit & Thomas LLP, 705 2nd Ave. Ste. 1200, Seattle, WA, 98104-1798, Lisa Daugaard, Prachi Vipinchandra Esq Dave, Public Defender Association, 110 Prefontaine Pl S Ste. 502, Seattle, WA, 98104-2626, Adam Klein, Christopher Mcnerney, 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor, New York, NY, 10017, Moire Heiges-Hoepfert, One California Street, 12th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94111, Hannah Cole-Chu, Outten Golden, 600 Massachusetts Avenue Nw, Suite 200w, Washington, DC, 20003, for Appellants.
Paul Michael Crisalli, Washington Attorney General's Office, 800 Fifth Ave. Ste. 2000, Seattle, WA, 98104-3188, David J. Hackett, King County PAO Civil Division, 516 3rd Ave. Ste. W554, Seattle, WA, 98104-2362, Timothy George Leyh, Randall Thor Thomsen, Harrigan Leyh Farmer & Thomsen LLP, 999 3rd Ave. Ste. 4400, Seattle, WA, 98104-4017, Bridget Elizabeth Casey, Snohomish County Prosecutor's Office, 3000 Rockefeller Ave., Everett, WA, 98201-4046, for Respondents.
John Ballif Midgley, ACLU of Washington Foundation, Nancy Lynn Talner, ACLU-WA, P.O. Box 2728, Seattle, WA, 98111-2728, for Amicus Curiae ACLU of Washington.
Robert S. Chang, Seattle University School of Law, 901 12th Ave., Seattle, WA, 98122-4411, Jessica Levin, Melissa R. Lee, Seattle University School of Law, 901 12th Ave., Korematsu Center For Law & Equality, Seattle, WA, 98122-4411, for Amicus Curiae Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality.
La Rond Baker, American Civil Liberties Union of Washin., P.O. Box 2728, Seattle, WA, 98111-2728, for Amicus Curiae King County Department of Public Defense.
Alexandria Marie Hohman, The Washington Defender Association, 110 Prefontaine Pl S Ste. 610, Seattle, WA, 98104-2626, for Amicus Curiae Washington Defender Association.
Jonathan Nomamiukor Jr., Columbia Legal Services, 101 Yesler Way Ste. 300, Seattle, WA, 98104-2528, for Amicus Curiae Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
PUBLISHED OPINION
Smith, A.C.J. ¶ 1 The Civil Survival Project, on behalf of its members, and the named plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, sued Washington State and King and Snohomish Counties. They sought the return and cancellation of legal financial obligations arising from convictions rendered retroactively unconstitutional by State v. Blake, 197 Wash.2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021). To this end they pleaded theories of unjust enrichment and rescission and requested injunctive relief under Washington's Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, ch. 7.24 RCW. The trial court dismissed without deciding whether to certify the class.
¶ 2 Williams v. City of Spokane, 199 Wash.2d 236, 505 P.3d 91 (2022), controls the resolution of this appeal. It clarifies, first, that Criminal Rule 7.8 and analogous rules provide the exclusive remedy to revisit judgment and sentences and, second, that no dispute exists under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act sufficient to permit injunctive relief. We therefore affirm.
FACTS
¶ 3 In February 2021, the Washington State Supreme Court created a sea change in our state criminal law when it issued its decision in Blake. Blake held unconstitutional Washington's strict liability drug possession statute, voiding it and vacating Blake's conviction. 197 Wash.2d at 195, 481 P.3d 521. The rippling impacts of this decision have yet to be fully realized, let alone resolved, and will not likely be for many years. Because of the interaction between the strict liability drug possession statute and other criminal statutes—such as crimes that incorporate other crimes as an element1 or the use of Blake-related convictions when calculating a defendant's offender score2 —it is possible that more than 100,000 individuals were affected by Washington's decades-long enforcement of the now void law.3 Unspooling Blake’s practical consequences for all affected individuals is, as a result, a considerable task by virtue of both its scale and its complexity.
¶ 4 Counties across the State, coordinating with the State itself, have sought to address Blake by vacating convictions both proactively and, in response to individual's motions to the court, reactively. Efforts to ensure that Blake’s promise is fulfilled have not, however, been limited to the executive branch of our government. Our state Supreme Court has actively promulgated changes to court rules to enable easier access to counsel to address voided convictions.4 And our state legislature has passed multiple bills that touch on the issues arising in Blake’s wake, the first only two months after issuance of the decision. S.B. 5092, 67th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2021); ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE S.B. (ESSB) 5693, 67th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2022). The most recent legislative appropriation directs more than $100 million towards the administrative and other costs of addressing Blake. ESSB 5693, at 12-13.
¶ 5 Prioritized above all by the various governmental entities responding to Blake are currently imprisoned individuals for whom vacation of their Blake conviction would result in immediate release. However, the return and discharge of legal financial obligations (LFOs) imposed as a part of Blake sentences is also of great concern. LFOs comprise the gamut of fees, fines, and other financial assignments related to a criminal conviction.5 They can range from seemingly small amounts to considerably larger ones, and can be mandatory or discretionary on the part of the trial court. Collectively, they can constitute a severe burden on a population that already faces disproportionate financial struggles; failure to pay has in some counties resulted in the debtor's incarceration.6 Increasingly the subject of scrutiny, the harsh consequences of LFOs were referenced in the Blake decision itself, though they were not its focus. 197 Wash.2d at 184, 481 P.3d 521.
¶ 6 This lawsuit was initiated on March 11, 2021, only two weeks after Blake’s issuance. Brought at first by the Civil Survival Project (CSP)—a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing the interests of formerly incarcerated people—on behalf of its clients and members, the suit's collection of plaintiffs was supplemented to include Irene Slagle, Christina Zawaideh, Julia Reardon, Adam Kravitz, Laura Yarbrough, and Deighton Boyce, each of whom has borne Blake LFOs. This group of individuals was meant to be the named members of a proposed plaintiff class representing all people affected by Blake LFOs.7 The lawsuit's original defendants were the State of Washington and King and Snohomish Counties. This group, too, would be expanded, eventually encompassing all Washington counties.
¶ 7 The plaintiffs’ goal is the return of any money paid towards an LFO downstream of a Blake conviction and the cancellation of any outstanding obligation. To this end they plead several legal causes of action, all couched within the framework of a putative class action. First, they bring unjust enrichment and rescission claims as to both paid and unpaid LFOs. Second, they request declaratory relief pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA). Through this avenue they pursue declarations from the court that: (1) their class's convictions are "void and vacated"; (2) they are entitled to recover Blake LFOs collected by the defendants; (3) defendants must cancel any unpaid LFO debt; (4) defendants must not reallocate Blake-related payments to cover other LFO balances; and (5) they request any further equitable relief deemed proper.
¶ 8 The case comes to us on appeal from the superior court's grant of King and Snohomish Counties’ motion to dismiss, which was decided before consideration of the plaintiffs’ request for class certification. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims of unjust enrichment and rescission after determining that Criminal Rule (CrR) 7.8 in superior courts—or its equivalent rules in courts of limited jurisdiction—is the "exclusive mechanism" to obtain the relief requested through those claims. It dismissed the request for declaratory relief after determining that CrR 7.8 and its alternatives are an "adequate alternative remedy" to declaratory relief. The court concluded that the rules of procedure do not entitle the plaintiffs’ to their requested relief other than through individual motions under CrR 7.8 or its alternatives; it concluded that civil class action is an improper vehicle.
¶ 9 The plaintiffs appeal.8
ANALYSIS
¶ 10 We are presented with two questions. First, whether CSP and the individual plaintiffs are barred from bringing civil class action claims to address the burden of their Blake LFOs because CrR 7.8 and its equivalent rules prohibit other avenues of relief. Second, whether the plaintiffs are nonetheless entitled to declaratory judgment. We conclude that the Washington Supreme Court definitively resolved these issues earlier this year with its...
To continue reading
Request your trial