In re Williams

Decision Date07 October 2021
Docket NumberNo. 99344-1,99344-1
Citation496 P.3d 289
Parties In the MATTER OF the Personal Restraint Petition of Robert Rufus WILLIAMS, Petitioner.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Jacqueline McMurtrie, Kaylan Lee Lovrovich, Washington Innocence Project, P.o. Box 85869, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Timothy John Feulner, Office of the Attorney General, 1125 Washington St. Se, P.o. Box 40116, Olympia, WA, for Respondent.

Robert S. Chang, Melissa R. Lee, Jessica Levin, Seattle University School of Law, 901 12th Ave., Korematsu Center For Law & Equality, Seattle, WA, for Amici Curiae on behalf of Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, Joe M.D. Goldenson.

Amy Irene Muth, Natalie D. Findley-Wolf, Law Office of Amy Muth, PLLC, 1000 2nd Ave. Ste. 3140, Seattle, WA, Antoinette M. Davis, Nancy Lynn Talner, Jaime Michelle Hawk, John Ballif Midgley, ACLU of Washington Foundation, P.o. Box 2728, Seattle, WA, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Aclu of Washington.

Nicholas Brian Allen, Nicholas Broten Straley, Janet S. Chung Columbia Legal Services, 101 Yesler Way Ste. 300, Seattle, WA, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Columbia Legal Services.

Neil Martin Fox, Law Office of Neil Fox, PLLC, 2125 Western Ave. Ste. 330, Seattle, WA, Jacob Parker Freeman, Attorney at Law, 415 1st Ave. N. Unit 9466, Seattle, WA, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Seattle Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild.

Cindy Arends Elsberry, Alexandria Marie Hohman, The Washington Defender Association, 110 Prefontaine Pl. S. Ste. 610, Seattle, WA, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Defender Association.

Jose Dino Vasquez, Karr Tuttle Campbell, 701 5th Ave. Ste. 3300, Seattle, WA, Susanna M. Buergel, Darren W. Johnson, David C. Kimball-Stanley, Elizabeth A. Norford, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, Garrison, 1285 Avenue Of The Americas, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Public Health and Human Rights Experts.

La Rond Baker, Katherine Elizabeth Hurley, King County Department of Public Defense, 710 2nd Ave. Ste. 200, Seattle, WA, Brian Richard Flaherty, King County Department of Public Defense, 420 W. Harrison St. Ste. 202, Kent, WA, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of King County Department of Public Defense.

MADSEN, J.

¶1 In the midst of the global COVID-19 (coronavirus 2019) pandemic, Robert Rufus Williams filed a personal restraint petition (PRP) arguing that the conditions of his confinement constitute cruel punishment in violation of the state and federal constitutions. See WASH. CONST. art. I, § 14 ; U.S. CONST. amend. VIII. While confined in Department of Corrections (DOC) facilities, Williams asked this court to order his sentence be served in home confinement at his sister's home in Florida until COVID-19 no longer posed a threat to him.

¶2 After hearing oral arguments, we issued an order recognizing that article I, section 14 of the Washington Constitution is more protective than the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution regarding conditions of confinement and that Williams's then current conditions of confinement were cruel under the state constitution: specifically, the lack of reasonable access to bathroom facilities and running water, as well as DOC's failure to provide Williams with appropriate assistance in light of his physical disabilities. We granted Williams's PRP and directed DOC to remedy those conditions or to release Williams.

¶3 DOC later reported that it had complied with this court's order and had placed Williams in a housing unit designed for assisted living care. Williams was relocated to a single cell with no roommates and a toilet and sink, and was given access to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant restrooms and a readily available medical staff, an assigned wheelchair pusher/therapy aide, and an emergency pendant allowing him to call for assistance. We concluded that these actions remedied the unconstitutional conditions and declined to order Williams's release.

¶4 Today, we explain the reasoning underlying our order granting Williams's PRP. We hold that the Washington Constitution is more protective than the federal constitution in the context of prison conditions and accordingly announce a test to analyze conditions of confinement that provides the protection required by article I, section 14. Under this test, the conditions of Williams's incarceration violated our state's cruel punishment clause because those conditions exposed Williams to a significant risk of serious harm by depriving him basic hygienic necessities and those conditions were not sufficiently related to any legitimate penological interest.

BACKGROUND

¶5 In 2009, Williams was convicted of multiple offenses, including the brutal assault of his ex-girlfriend. State v. Williams , noted at 160 Wash. App. 1036, 2011 WL 1004554, at *1-3. Williams was sentenced to 22.5 years of confinement. See id. at *3. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction in 2011. Id . at *5.

¶6 In late December 2019, COVID-19 swept across the globe. An airborne virus transmitted through inhaling infected aerosol droplets, COVID-19 is especially dangerous for individuals over the age of 65 and those with preexisting medical conditions, and it has severely affected communities of color. Risk for COVID-19 Infection, Hospitalization, and Death by Race/Ethnicity , CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (updated Sept. 9, 2021), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-race-ethnicity.html [https://perma.cc/J39U-6HDA]; The COVID Racial Data Tracker , THE COVID TRACKING PROJECT AT THE ATLANTIC , https://covidtracking.com/race [https://perma.cc/9SMQ-MFST]. Transmission of COVID-19 is particularly concerning in the correctional setting due to the close quarters in which inmates live, the crowding, and the recirculated air. See Colvin v. Inslee , 195 Wash.2d 879, 886, 467 P.3d 953 (2020) ("Prisons are not designed to easily accommodate social distancing."); Ahlman v. Barnes , 445 F. Supp. 3d 671, 679 (C.D. Cal. 2020) ("COVID-19 is particularly dangerous in jails and prisons, where inmates are often unable to practice the recommended social distancing, lack access to basic hygienic necessities, and are regularly exposed to correctional officers and staff who move in and out of the Jail.").

¶7 DOC has taken numerous steps to stem the spread of COVID-19 within its 12 prisons. These steps include

- Implementing screening, testing, and infection control guidelines that are continuously updated;
- Employing an infectious disease physician to manage DOC's infection prevention program;
- Employing specialized infection prevention nurses at major prison facilities;
- Daily staff screening and contact tracing;
- Screening and quarantining newly admitted inmates;
- Screening and isolating (when required) inmates transported between facilities;
- Instituting protocols to limit the volume of inmate transfers;
- Reducing the number of incarcerated individuals;
- Implementing an "intensive cleaning protocol" for high touch surfaces;
- Providing inmates with two bars of soap at no cost, ongoing free soap during the pandemic, and hand sanitizer in certain areas, and using inmates to assist with cleaning efforts;
- Implementing physical distancing through room occupancy limits, reducing programming and inmates in the outside yards, staggering medication lines, closing weight lifting areas, and adjusting religious services;
- Quarantining, isolating, and testing suspected or confirmed COVID-19 inmates;
- Providing bandana face coverings to inmates, and in some instances providing and requiring fit-tested N95 masks;
- Suspending visitation and volunteer programs at all DOC facilities; and
- Undertaking an incremental approach to resuming normal operations.

DOC Mot. to Suppl., Ex. 1, para. 4 (Second Decl. of Scott Russell) (Wash. Ct. App. No. 54629-9-II (2020)); see generally DOC's Resp., Ex. 2 (Decl. of Julie Martin) (Wash. Ct. App. No. 54629-9-II (2020)) (detailing DOC's ongoing efforts to reduce the spread of COVID-19 within its facilities).

¶8 During the initial stage of the pandemic, Williams was 77 years old and incarcerated at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center. Williams, a Black man, suffered from diabetes and hypertension. Years earlier, Williams had experienced a massive stroke that immobilized the right side of his body and required him to use a wheelchair. Williams relied on therapy aides to push his wheelchair and assist him with daily tasks.

¶9 At Coyote Ridge, Williams shared a cell with three other inmates. Because that cell was dry—lacking a sink or toilet—Williams had to wait for prison staff to unlock his cell and move him to an accessible bathroom facility equipped to accommodate his needs. Williams often waited long periods of time for assistance to the bathroom. As a result, he was forced to relieve himself in bottles and was unable to keep himself clean.

¶10 In April 2020, Williams sought an extraordinary medical placement with his sister in Florida. DOC denied the request, determining that Williams failed to satisfy the requisite community safety criteria. A week later, Coyote Ridge reported its first case of COVID-19 within the prison population.

¶11 On May 15, 2020, Williams petitioned for relief from unlawful restraint in this court. Williams argued that his conditions of confinement were cruel punishment in violation of article I, section 14 of the Washington State Constitution and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He asked us to order his immediate release to live with his sister in Florida. We transferred the PRP to the Court of Appeals for consideration.

¶12 While his case was pending before the Court of Appeals, Williams tested positive for COVID-19. After hospitalization, Williams was discharged to the Airway Heights Corrections Center infirmary and eventually transferred back to Coyote Ridge. He soon reported feeling chest pain, shortness of breath, and fatigue; Williams was returned to his cell....

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State v. Ramos
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • November 7, 2022
    ... ... at 62, 720 P.2d 808. Specifically, "[t]he fourth Gunwall factor directs us to consider whether established bodies of state law, including statutory law, support more protective state constitutional rights." Matter of Williams , 198 Wash.2d 342, 358, 496 P.3d 289 (2021). This means that "courts consider not just the particular constitutional provision but all statutory and case law related to the issue." Id ... (citations omitted). The question is then whether Washington law has been more protective than federal law in ... ...
  • State v. Rivers
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • August 3, 2023
    ...questions first under our own state constitution before relying on federal law. In re Pers. Restraint of Williams, 198 Wn.2d 342, 353, 496 P.3d 289 (2021). Article I, section 21 provides, in relevant part, "[t]he right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate." WASH. CONST. art. I, § 21. Art......
  • In re Marshall
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • May 22, 2023
    ... ... Elmore , 162 Wn.2d 236, 251, 172 P.3d 335 (2007). For a ... PRP based on a constitutional error, a petitioner must show ... that a constitutional error occurred and the error resulted ... in actual and substantial prejudice. In re Pers ... Restraint of Williams , 198 Wn.2d 342, 353, 496 P.3d 289 ... (2021). A petitioner who alleges unlawful restraint based on ... nonconstitutional error must demonstrate a fundamental defect ... resulting in a complete miscarriage of justice ... Elmore , 162 Wn.2d at 251 ... ...
  • State v. Hawkins
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • October 27, 2022
    ... ... Hodges , 576 U.S. 644, 659-60, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 192 ... L.Ed.2d 609 (2015) (discussing history and context of right ... to marriage); id. at 713 (Scalia, J., dissenting) ... (same); In re Pers. Restraint of Williams , 198 Wn.2d ... 342, 353-62, 496 P.3d 289 (2021) (considering history and ... context of state constitution's cruel punishment clause); ... Wash. State Legislature v. Inslee , 198 Wn.2d 561, ... 570-74, 498 P.3d 496 (2021) (considering history and context ... of state ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT