Opinion
No. 99344-1
02-03-2021
In the MATTER OF the Personal Restraint of: Robert Rufus WILLIAMS, Petitioner.
RULING GRANTING REVIEW
The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected all segments of American society, including the men and women confined in correctional facilities operated by the Washington State Department of Corrections. One of these inmates, Robert Williams, moves for discretionary review of a published decision by Division Two of the Court of Appeals denying a personal restraint petition challenging his confinement while COVID-19 ravaged his facility. As explained briefly below, this case presents significant constitutional questions and an issue of substantial public interest worthy of this court's review under RAP 13.4(b)(3) and 13.4(b)(4). The motion for discretionary review is therefore granted.
Mr. Williams is a 78-year-old man serving a 22.5 year sentence for attempted murder. His projected earned release date is April 30, 2028, at which time he will be 85 years old. Mr. Williams's health is poor generally. He has had a stroke and requires assistance moving about in a wheelchair.
Mr. Williams is incarcerated at the Coyote Ridge Correctional Center. The COVID-19 pandemic has hit that facility hard, with 396 confirmed cases as of February 2, 2021, and with 43 cases occurring in the last 30 days. Two inmates at that facility died. Across the entirety of state correctional facilities, which house approximately 15,000 inmates, there have been 5,940 cases, with 441 of them active. Eleven inmates have died. See https://www.doc.wa.gov/corrections/coviid-19/data.htm#confirmed. (visited Feb. 3, 2021) (tracking confirmed cases in individual facilities); https://www.doc.wa.gov/news/2021/02022021phtm. (visited Feb. 3, 2021) (press release reporting death of 11th inmate). The department has taken numerous measures to mitigate the risk to Mr. Williams and other inmates. The efficacy of these measures is a matter of dispute that will not be explored here.
Assisted by counsel, Mr. Williams sought relief by way of a personal restraint petition on May 15, 2020, arguing that his conditions of confinement constitutes cruel punishment in violation of article I, section 14 of the Washington Constitution and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and seeking the remedy of home confinement with his sister. Mr. Williams contracted COVID-19 less than a month after filing his petition but survived the ordeal. His health remains poor. The Court of Appeals concluded that Mr. Williams failed to show that he was unlawfully restrained within the meaning of RAP 16.4(c) and therefore denied his petition, his request for immediate release, and his alternative request for a reference hearing. In re Pers. Restraint of Williams, ___ Wn. App. 2d ___, 476 P.3d 1064 (2020). Judge Cruser dissented in part, preferring that the court refer the matter to the superior court for a reference hearing. See id. at 1087.
As indicated, Mr. Williams now seeks discretionary review in this court. RAP 16.14(c). I denied Mr. Williams's motions for immediate release and accelerated review without prejudice pending consideration of his motion for discretionary review. Mr. Williams's motion for discretionary review is supported by an amicus curiae memorandum filed by a coalition of public interest groups, legal service agencies, and a medical professional.1 The Department of Corrections opposes discretionary review.
To obtain discretionary review in this court, Mr. Williams must demonstrate that the Court of Appeals decision conflicts with a decision of this court or with a published Court of Appeals decision, or that he is raising a significant constitutional question or an issue of substantial public interest. RAP 13.4(b). Mr. Williams contends that review is justified because he is raising a significant constitutional question and that his case involves an issue of substantial public interest. RAP 13.4(b)(3)-(4).
Having reviewed the Court of Appeals decision, the briefing of the parties and amici, and the records presented, it is readily apparent that this court's review is justified. The Court of Appeals conducted a thorough and scholarly analysis whether the prohibition against cruel punishment under article I, section 14 of the Washington Constitution is more protective than the Eighth Amendment in light of the multifactor test explicated in State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 61-62, 720 P.2d 808 (1986). After concluding that article I, section 14 offered broader protection than the Eighth Amendment, the Court of Appeals applied what it described as "an adapted categorical analysis" in determining whether Mr. Williams's conditions of confinement offended our state's constitution. Williams, 476 P.3d at 1079. After considering how other states responded to the crisis, the severity of the risk faced by Mr. Williams, and the penological justifications for his continued confinement, the court concluded that Mr. Williams's continued confinement did not violate article I, section 14. Id. at 1084. The court further held that Mr. Williams failed to show that the department acted with deliberate indifference in relation to the COVID-19 outbreak at Coyote Ridge, therefore rejecting his Eighth Amendment claim. Id. at 1085-86. As indicated, Judge Cruser thought a reference hearing was appropriate. Id. at 1087.
Whether the Court of Appeals decision is correct on these constitutional questions, particularly the State constitutional issue, is worthy of debate. And it is uncertain whether a personal restraint petition will provide an adequate remedy in any event. RAP 16.4(d). I am also mindful that this court rejected an Eighth Amendment argument raised by a group of inmates fearful of COVID-19. Colvin v. Inslee, 195 Wn.2d 879, 900-01, 467 P.3d 953 (2020). But the court there was not called on to engage in the Gunwall analysis conducted by the Court of Appeals in this case. Colvin, 195 Wn.2d at 900. Furthermore, the facts in Colvin were developed in the earlier months of the pandemic, not the nightmarish situation that faces the world today. The constitutional questions raised in this case are significant enough under RAP 13.4(b)(3) for this court to ponder.
In addition, the grim facts surrounding this case continue to evolve. The Court of Appeals stated that "the Department managed to control an outbreak at Coyote Ridge through aggressive testing cont[] act tracing, and quarantining." Williams, 476 P.3d at 1086. That may have been true at some point. But the history of the pandemic indicates that the department became overwhelmed by the situation and is still struggling to get matters under control. The chaos wrought by COVID-19 at Coyote Ridge and other heavily affected correctional facilities, and the department's efforts in responding to this constantly changing threat, constitutes an ongoing issue of substantial public interest within the meaning of RAP 13.4(b)(4).
Review is therefore warranted.
As indicated, Mr. Williams's motion for immediate release was continued to this time. As previously stated, Mr. Williams has not yet demonstrated that his immediate release is warranted under RAP 16.15(b). See In re Pers. Restraint of Pauley, 13 Wn. App. 2d 292, 231, 466 P.3d 245 (2020) (personal restraint petitioner not entitled to release under RAP 16.15(b) where there is no showing of unlawful confinement). The motion for immediate release is therefore passed to the merits for further consideration.
Mr. Williams also seeks accelerated review. That motion is granted for the limited purpose of facilitating the setting of oral argument, most likely early in the Spring Term of 2021.
The motion for discretionary review is granted. The motion for immediate release is passed to the merits. The motion for accelerated review is granted. Any party may serve and file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of this ruling, see RAP 13.7(d). The case will be set for oral argument on a date to be determined.