Jamie Wallin, V. Snohomish County

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: January 20, 2026
• Docket: 87526-4
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE

JAMIE WALLIN, No. 87526-4-I (consolidated with No. 87527-2-I) Appellant,

v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION SNOHOMISH COUNTY,

Respondent.

BOWMAN, A.C.J. — Jamie Wallin sued Snohomish County under the Public

Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW, to compel the production of requested

public records and to impose statutory penalties. Wallin appeals the trial court’s

order dismissing his consolidated lawsuits under CR 12(c). He argues the trial

court erred by determining that a permanent injunction issued against him

prohibits his lawsuits seeking to compel production of public records. And he

argues the court erred by dismissing his request for statutory penalties before

ruling on the alleged PRA violations. Because Wallin is enjoined from requesting

or receiving public records under the PRA and he failed to sufficiently allege that

Snohomish County acted in bad faith when seeking statutory penalties, we affirm

the trial court’s dismissal and deny costs on appeal.

FACTS

On January 31, 2008, a jury convicted Wallin of two counts of first degree

rape of a child and two counts of first degree child molestation. The trial court No. 87526-4-I (consol. with No. 87527-2-I)/2

sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole. In December 2017, while

incarcerated, Wallin made two public records requests under the PRA. In one

PRA request, he asked the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO) to

produce “six categories” of records related to its investigation in SCSO case

number 06-29187. He requested, among other things, recorded interviews,

evidence logs, and forensic information. Between December 2017 and May

2022, the SCSO produced 27 installments of records.

In the other PRA request, Wallin asked the SCSO to produce “six

categories” of records related to its investigation in SCSO case number S007-

08866. He requested, among other things, medical examination reports,

recorded interviews, and Child Protective Services reports. Between December

2017 and August 2022, the SCSO produced 22 installments of records.

Then, in 2021, Wallin submitted two PRA requests to the Department of

Corrections (DOC). See Wallin v. Dep’t of Corr., No. 58968-1-II, slip op. at 2-3

(Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2025) (unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/

opinions/pdf/D2%2058968-1-II%20Unpublished%20Opinion.pdf. In April 2022,

he sued the DOC in the Thurston County Superior Court to compel production of

public records under the PRA. See id. at 3. The DOC counterclaimed, arguing

that Wallin made the PRA requests to harass the DOC. Id. And it asked for

injunctive relief against Wallin under RCW 42.56.565. Id.

On May 19, 2023, the Thurston County Superior Court entered a

permanent injunction (Injunction) under RCW 42.56.565, barring Wallin “from

requesting to inspect, copy, or receive public records pursuant to the PRA from

2 No. 87526-4-I (consol. with No. 87527-2-I)/3

the [DOC] and other agencies within the meaning of RCW 42.56.010(1) for the

duration of his incarceration absent prior approval from the court.” It also

prohibited Wallin from “receiving any records to any public records requests

submitted by him to the [DOC] or any other agency within the meaning of RCW

42.56.010(1), including requests that he has previously submitted to the [DOC] or

to other agencies.” The court found that Wallin

has established a pattern of harassing the [DOC] and other public agencies by making public records requests and filing subsequent lawsuits for the purpose of financial gain. This conduct amounts to harassment and abuse of the PRA.

It reasoned that the Injunction “is necessary and appropriate to prevent [him]

from continuing to use the PRA to harass the [DOC] and other agencies.” Wallin

appealed the Injunction to Division Two of this court. See Wallin, No. 58968-1-II.

In July and August of 2023, Wallin filed two separate complaints against

Snohomish County in the Snohomish County Superior Court.1 Wallin based both

complaints on his 2017 PRA requests and asked the trial court to compel

production of the requested records and award him penalties and costs.

On August 1, 2024, Snohomish County moved for judgment on the

pleadings under CR 12(b)(6) and (c). It argued that Thurston County Superior

Court’s Injunction prevents Wallin from obtaining relief under the PRA. On

August 16, Wallin responded, arguing that because Snohomish County was not a

party to the Thurston County Superior Court lawsuit that gave rise to the

Injunction, the Injunction does not bind Snohomish County. On August 20,

1 The parties litigated the cases simultaneously. On September 30, 2024, Wallin moved to consolidate the cases, arguing they were “nearly identical.” On October 14, 2024, the trial court granted the motion to consolidate.

3 No. 87526-4-I (consol. with No. 87527-2-I)/4

Snohomish County filed a certified copy of Wallin’s 2008 judgment and sentence

to show that he was serving a prison sentence when he made the PRA requests.

The next day on August 21, 2024, the trial court entered an order on

Snohomish County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court

determined that even though Wallin “cannot receive responsive records because

of the Permanent Injunction, he could theoretically be entitled to an award of up

to $100 per day [for failure to timely produce public records] if he prevailed in a

PRA action against Snohomish County.” But it recognized that RCW

42.56.565(1) prohibits a court from awarding penalties under RCW 42.56.550(4)

to a PRA petitioner serving a prison sentence unless it finds that the agency

acted in bad faith. The court gave Wallin time to object to the court taking judicial

notice of his judgment and sentence and reserved its ruling until September 13,

2024. On September 6, Wallin objected to the judgment and sentence as “not

applicable to this action.”

On September 13, 2024, the court granted Snohomish County’s motion for

judgment on the pleadings. It determined that Wallin failed to state a claim on

which the court could grant relief because he is “barred from using the [PRA] per

the Prisoner Injunction.” On September 27, Wallin moved for reconsideration.

He argued that the court erred by dismissing the case because the Injunction did

not apply and further proceedings were necessary. The trial court denied

Wallin’s motion for reconsideration.

On February 25, 2025, Division Two affirmed the Injunction against Wallin.

Wallin, No. 58968-1-II, slip op. at 21. It held that the trial court did not err by

4 No. 87526-4-I (consol. with No. 87527-2-I)/5

entering the Injunction “because DOC showed by a preponderance of the

evidence that Wallin had submitted PRA requests with the intent to harass the

agency and make a profit from subsequent PRA litigation.” Id. at 2.

Wallin appeals from the order dismissing his Snohomish County

consolidated lawsuits.

ANALYSIS

Wallin argues the trial court erred by dismissing his claims seeking to

compel production of public records because the Injunction issued by Thurston

County Superior Court does not apply to his Snohomish County lawsuits. He

also argues the court erred by dismissing his request for statutory penalties

before he could prove that Snohomish County acted in bad faith. And he

requests costs on appeal. We address each argument in turn.

1. Dismissal

We review a CR 12(c) dismissal de novo. Zurich Servs. Corp. v. Gene

Mace Constr., LLC, 26 Wn. App. 2d 10, 19, 526 P.3d 46 (2023). The purpose of

a CR 12(c) motion is to determine whether a plaintiff can prove any set of facts

justifying relief. Id. We accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true. Id.

at 20. And “we grant the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the

factual allegations in the complaint, as well as hypothetical facts consistent with

the complaint.” Id.

5 No. 87526-4-I (consol. with No. 87527-2-I)/6

A. Claims Seeking to Compel Production of Public Records

Wallin argues the Injunction does not prohibit his claims because it did not

bind Snohomish County under CR 65(d) and because Thurston County Superior

Court did not have jurisdiction over Snohomish County. We disagree.

The PRA “is a strongly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public

records.” Neigh. All. of Spokane County v. Spokane County, 172 Wn.2d 702,

714, 261 P.3d 119 (2011). Its purpose is “to increase governmental

transparency and accountability by making public records accessible to

Washington’s citizens.” West v. City of Tacoma, 12 Wn. App. 2d 45, 70, 456

P.3d 894 (2020). And we “liberally construe the PRA to promote the public

interest.” Id.

Still, under certain circumstances, a trial court can issue PRA injunctions

against people serving criminal sentences. See RCW 42.56.565. Under RCW

42.56.565(2), a court may enjoin “[t]he inspection or copying of any nonexempt

public record by persons serving criminal sentences in state, local, or privately

operated correctional facilities.” To issue an injunction, the court must find:

(i) The request was made to harass or intimidate the agency or its employees; (ii) Fulfilling the request would likely threaten the security of correctional facilities; (iii) Fulfilling the request would likely threaten the safety or security of staff, inmates, family members of staff, family members of other inmates, or any other person; or (iv) Fulfilling the request may assist criminal activity.

RCW 42.56.565(2)(c). If the court makes one of those findings by a

preponderance of the evidence, it may enjoin “all or any part of a request or

6 No. 87526-4-I (consol. with No. 87527-2-I)/7

requests” and “future requests by . . . [t]he same requestor.” RCW

42.56.565(4)(a).

Here, the Thurston County Superior Court found that Wallin made his PRA

requests to harass agencies and entered the Injunction under RCW

42.56.565(2)(c)(i), (ii), and (iv). The Injunction barred Wallin “from requesting to

inspect, copy, or receive public records pursuant to the PRA from the [DOC] and

other agencies within the meaning of RCW 42.56.010(1) for the duration of his

incarceration absent prior approval from the court.” It also prohibited Wallin from

“receiving any records to any public records requests submitted by him to the

[DOC] or any other agency within the meaning of RCW 42.56.010(1), including

requests that he has previously submitted to the [DOC] or to other agencies.”

RCW 42.56.010(1) defines an “agency” as including “all state agencies and all

local agencies.” And a “local agency” includes “every county.” Id.

Under the plain language of the Injunction, Wallin is barred from

requesting or receiving any public records from an agency without the court’s

permission. And Snohomish County is an agency under RCW 42.56.010(1). So,

Wallin cannot receive any records from Snohomish County under the PRA

without court approval. As a result, he fails to state a PRA claim against

Snohomish County “to compel disclosure and production of unlawfully withheld

public records and information.”

Still, Wallin relies on CR 65(d) to argue that the Injunction does not apply

here because it does not bind Snohomish County. But whether the Injunction

binds Snohomish County is immaterial. CR 65(d) provides that an injunction is

7 No. 87526-4-I (consol. with No. 87527-2-I)/8

binding on, among others, “the parties to the action.” Wallin was a party to the

action in which Thurston County entered the Injunction that prevents him from

requesting or receiving records under the PRA. So, the Injunction is binding on

him and prohibits his claims here.

Similarly, Wallin asserts that the Injunction does not apply because

Thurston County Superior Court did not have personal jurisdiction over

Snohomish County. But again, the Injunction need not bind Snohomish County.

It is enough that the Injunction binds Wallin and prohibits him from receiving

public records without the court’s prior approval.2 For that reason, Wallin’s PRA

claims seeking to compel production of “unlawfully withheld public records” fail.

B. Claims Seeking Statutory Penalties

Wallin also argues that even if the Injunction prevented him from obtaining

the requested public records, it did not prevent him from obtaining penalties

under the PRA. He contends the court erred by dismissing the case before he

could prove that Snohomish County acted in bad faith. We disagree.

Whether an agency acted in bad faith under the PRA is a mixed question

of law and fact, requiring the application of legal principles (the definition of “bad

faith”) to factual circumstances (the details of the PRA violation). Faulkner v.

Dep’t of Corr., 183 Wn. App. 93, 101-02, 332 P.3d 1136 (2014). Under RCW

42.56.565(1), a court shall not

award penalties under RCW 42.56.550(4) to a person who was serving a criminal sentence in a state, local, or privately operated correctional facility on the date the request for public records was

2 Wallin does not challenge that Thurston County Superior Court had personal jurisdiction over him.

8 No. 87526-4-I (consol. with No. 87527-2-I)/9

made, unless the court finds that the agency acted in bad faith in denying the person the opportunity to inspect or copy a public record.

“Bad faith” in the context of PRA penalties has been associated with “the most

culpable acts by an agency,” like when an agency acts “unreasonably with utter

indifference to the purpose of the PRA.” Faulkner, 183 Wn. App. at 105.

Here, Wallin failed to allege any facts in his complaint showing bad faith.

He alleged that Snohomish County unjustifiably responded to his requests late,

made overbroad and improper redactions, and failed to follow certain policies.

Then he broadly asserted that Snohomish County’s “action and/or inaction”

described in those allegations amounts to its “bad faith in denying . . . Wallin the

opportunity to inspect and copy a public record.” Even accepting all his factual

allegations as true, none amount to bad faith under RCW 42.56.565(1).

The trial court did not err by dismissing Wallin’s claims under CR 12(c).3

2. Costs on Appeal

Wallin also argues he is entitled to costs on appeal under RCW

42.56.550(4) and RAP 14.2 as the “prevailing party.”4 Under RCW 42.56.550(4),

[a]ny person who prevails against an agency in any action in the courts seeking the right to inspect or copy any public record or the right to receive a response to a public record request within a reasonable amount of time shall be awarded all costs.

And RAP 14.2 provides that we may award costs “to the party that substantially

prevails on review.” Because Wallin is not the prevailing party, we deny his

3 Wallin also argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for reconsideration. Because the trial court did not err by dismissing his lawsuit, it also did not err by denying reconsideration. 4 Wallin cites RAP 14.1 but we presume this was a typographical error.

9 No. 87526-4-I (consol. with No. 87527-2-I)/10

request for costs.

We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Wallin’s claims and deny costs on

appeal.

WE CONCUR: