Gronquist v. Dep't of Corr.

• Decision Date: 04 March 2011
• Docket Number: No. 39651–3–II.,39651–3–II.
• Parties: Derek E. GRONQUIST and Byron A. Mustard, Appellants,v.DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

159 Wash.App. 576

247 P.3d 436

Derek E. GRONQUIST and Byron A. Mustard, Appellants,

v.DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 39651–3–II.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.

Jan. 19, 2011.As Corrected March 4, 2011.

Derek E. Gronquist, Walla Walla, WA, pro se.Byron A. Mustard, Wenatchee, WA, pro se.Andrea Vingo, Attorney General–Corrections Div., Olympia, WA, for Respondent.BRIDGEWATER, J.

[159 Wash.App. 580] ¶ 1 Derek E. Gronquist and Byron A. Mustard (collectively inmates) appeal from a trial court's orders granting the Department of Correction's (DOC) motion for summary judgment and dismissing their show cause motion. We hold that the DOC's Policy 280.510 (policy) does not violate the Public Records Act (PRA),¹ separation of powers, or collateral estoppel. In addition, because the inmates preemptively took the position that they would not pay for any copies of documents, the DOC did not need to perform a search for responsive records. We affirm the orders granting partial summary judgment and dismissing the inmates' show cause motion.

FACTS

¶ 2 On October 27, 2001, Derek Gronquist mailed a Public Disclosure Act (PDA) ² request to the Airway Heights Corrections Center (AHCC) public disclosure officer asking for all documents alleging retaliatory action by AHCC staff since the facility's inception. Gronquist insisted on inspecting the records in person and did not want to pay for copies. Under DOC Policy 280.510, the DOC does not permit an offender to inspect public records in person except for information contained in the offender's central file or medical file. “Inspection” appears to mean an in-person viewing of public records without cost to the requester. See Clerk's Papers (CP) at 283 (explaining procedures for in-person inspection). For all other records, the DOC mails an inmate copies for a fee of $0.20 per page, plus postage. WAC 137–08–110(2).

¶ 3 The DOC notified Gronquist that, due to the facility's document retention policy, it could not provide complete documentation of every retaliatory act alleged at the AHCC. The DOC later notified Gronquist that it had identified 70 pages of documents and requested $16.95 for copies and postage.

¶ 4 On January 18, 2005, Gronquist filed another PDA request and sought inspection of 14 different categories of information, including written materials regarding himself, materials concerning a job that Gronquist appears to have wanted, the complete employment files of two corrections officers, and records and/or training materials that appraise staff.³ On January 26, the DOC again notified Gronquist of its policy and that he needed to submit DOC form 05–066 to inspect his central file without cost. The DOC did not provide a page count of responsive documents it found.

¶ 5 On February 16, Byron Mustard filed a PDA request, asking to inspect information regarding his banking records and personnel in charge of managing his account and court-obligated deductions. Mustard stated that he did not want copies; but rather he wanted to inspect the documents. The DOC notified Mustard of DOC Policy 280.510 and stated that it would search existing records and compile the information he sought. On March 4, 2005, the DOC notified Mustard that it had compiled 93 pages of documentation and that it would forward the documents upon receipt of $22.45.

¶ 6 The inmates have not paid for copies and thus the DOC has not sent the requested documents. On October 5, 2006, the inmates sued the DOC, seeking an injunction enjoining the DOC from enforcing its policy and to declare the policy contrary to statutory and constitutional law. The inmates also sought to compel inspection of the records they requested in 2001 and 2005.⁴ They also claimed that the DOC was collaterally estopped from enforcing the policy because of a previous judicial determination in a case brought by Gronquist.

¶ 7 On August 8, 2008, the DOC moved for summary judgment, arguing that, under Sappenfield v. Department of Corrections, ⁵ its policy was proper. On August 22, the inmates filed a motion to show cause why inspection of the records should not be compelled and the policy should not be enjoined. They alleged that the DOC failed to (1) perform an adequate search for the records requested, (2) identify withheld records, and (3) preserve records subject to PRA requests.

¶ 8 The trial court granted a partial summary judgment motion in the DOC's favor, finding Sappenfield persuasive. In a separate hearing, the trial court denied the inmates' show cause motion and dismissed their complaint with prejudice. The inmates appeal both orders.

ANALYSIS

I. DOC Policy 280.510

A. Summary Judgment

¶ 9 First, the inmates argue that under the PRA, the DOC must permit them to inspect public records in person and that denying them that right amounts to a denial of their PRA requests. The inmates contend that the DOC may only charge for copies if they request that the copies be mailed to them.

¶ 10 We review de novo a challenge to an agency action under the PRA. Sappenfield v. Dep't of Corr., 127 Wash.App. 83, 88, 110 P.3d 808 (2005), review denied, 156 Wash.2d 1013, 132 P.3d 146 (2006). When reviewing an order granting summary judgment, we engage in the same inquiry as the trial court. Kahn v. Salerno, 90 Wash.App. 110, 117, 951 P.2d 321, review denied, 136 Wash.2d 1016, 966 P.2d 1277 (1998). Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that no genuine issue as to any material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c). A material fact is one on which the outcome of the litigation depends, in whole or in part. Morris v. McNicol, 83 Wash.2d 491, 494, 519 P.2d 7 (1974). We consider all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Clements v. Travelers Indem. Co., 121 Wash.2d 243, 249, 850 P.2d 1298 (1993). The parties do not dispute any issues of fact as to the summary judgment motion.⁶

¶ 11 Public records shall be available for inspection and copying, and agencies shall, upon request for identifiable public records, make them promptly available to any person. RCW 42.56.080. Agencies shall not distinguish among persons requesting records. RCW 42.56.080. Agency facilities shall be made available to any person for the copying of public records except when and to the extent this would unreasonably disrupt the agency's operations. RCW 42.56.080. Agencies shall adopt and enforce reasonable rules and regulations consonant with the intent of chapter 42.56 RCW to provide full public access to public records, to protect public records from damage or disorganization, and to prevent excessive interference with other essential agency functions. RCW 42.56.100.

¶ 12 An agency shall not charge a fee for inspecting public records or for locating public documents and making them available for copying. RCW 42.56.120. But an agency may impose a reasonable charge for providing copies of public records, so long as the charges do not exceed the amount necessary to reimburse the agency for its actual costs incident to such copying. RCW 42.56.120.

¶ 13 In enforcing DOC Policy 280.510, the DOC appropriately balances the PRA's mandates with its duty to manage prison inmates. Sappenfield, 127 Wash.App. at 84, 110 P.3d 808. Sappenfield, an incarcerated inmate at the AHCC, filed a PDA request to inspect information not contained in his central file. Sappenfield, 127 Wash.App. at 84, 110 P.3d 808. The DOC informed him of DOC Policy 280.510, that it had compiled 187 pages of documents, and that it would mail the documents upon receipt of payment. Sappenfield, 127 Wash.App. at 85, 110 P.3d 808. Sappenfield treated this as a denial and sued for an order for DOC to show cause why the records should not be made available for personal inspection. Sappenfield, 127 Wash.App. at 85–86, 110 P.3d 808.

¶ 14 The trial court upheld the DOC's policy and Division Three of this court affirmed. Sappenfield, 127 Wash.App. at 87, 110 P.3d 808. First, the court acknowledged that the choice whether to copy or inspect on site is usually up to the requester, not the agency. Sappenfield, 127 Wash.App. at 88, 110 P.3d 808. But the court then noted that prisoner requests “are not the usual case.” Sappenfield, 127 Wash.App. at 88, 110 P.3d 808. The court acknowledged that prison administrators generally control matters affecting the prison's internal security and that inmates do not enjoy all the privileges of the public community. Sappenfield, 127 Wash.App. at 88, 110 P.3d 808. Further, the court noted that the PDA commands each agency to set its own disclosure rules. Sappenfield, 127 Wash.App. at 89, 110 P.3d 808 (citing former RCW 42.17.290 (1995), recodified as RCW 42.56.100 by Laws of 2005, ch. 274, § 103). The court concluded that “disclosure by promptly mailing copies at a reasonable charge satisfies this statutory obligation.” Sappenfield, 127 Wash.App. at 89, 110 P.3d 808.

¶ 15 In addition, the court noted that the DOC's policy complied with its duty to adopt and enforce reasonable rules and regulations to protect the public records and prevent excessive interference with its essential function to securely restrain criminal offenders. Sappenfield, 127 Wash.App. at 89, 110 P.3d 808 (citing former RCW 42.17.290). In addition, while the PRA specifically prohibits agencies from denying a requester copies of identifiable public records, the statute did not preclude denying requests for direct inspection when necessary to preserve the records and the agency's own essential functions. Sappenfield, 127 Wash.App. at 89, 110 P.3d 808 (citing former RCW 42.17.290). Thus, the Sappenfield court concluded that the DOC's policy was reasonable. Sappenfield, 127 Wash.App. at 90, 110 P.3d 808.

¶ 16 The inmates argue that Sappenfield is erroneous and should not be followed. Th...