John Garrett Smith, V. Anthony Golik

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: May 17, 2022
• Docket: 55531-0
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two

May 17, 2022

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II JOHN GARRETT SMITH, No. 55531-0-II

Appellant,

v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION ANTHONY GOLIK,

Respondent.

PRICE, J. — John G. Smith appeals the superior court’s CR 12(b)(6) order dismissing his

petition for a writ of mandamus to enforce the Public Records Act (PRA)1. We determine that a

writ of mandamus is not a proper remedy to enforce the PRA and affirm the superior court’s

dismissal.

FACTS

Smith made a public records request, dated December 29, 2019, addressed to the Clark

County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office requesting a number of items related to a cell phone

recording used as evidence in a previous criminal trial. Related to that PRA request, on February

7, 2020, Smith filed a “Petition for Emergency Writ of Mandamus” requesting that Clark County

Prosecuting Attorney Anthony Golik be required to turn over “the actual contents of [the] voice

1 Ch. 42.56 RCW. No. 55531-0-II

mail” on Smith’s phone pursuant to the PRA. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 5. Following a number of

allegations, the petition concluded:

Court should Order Mandamus disclosure of the actual iPHONE recording at once. The Public Records Act renders this the non-discretionary Duty of the Court.

CP at 6.

Golik filed a motion to dismiss under CR 12(b)(6), arguing that (1) Smith failed to perfect

service, (2) a writ of mandamus was not a proper mechanism to enforce a public records request,

and (3) Smith had failed to meet the standard to grant a writ of mandamus. The superior court

granted Golik’s motion to dismiss.

Smith appeals.

ANALYSIS

Smith argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus to

enforce his PRA claim. We determine that a writ of mandamus is not the appropriate remedy for

an alleged violation of Smith’s PRA claim and affirm the superior court’s dismissal.

I. LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Whether a trial court properly dismissed a claim under CR 12(b)(6) is a question of law we

review de novo. Jackson v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 186 Wn. App. 838, 843, 347 P.3d 487

(2015).

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that compels performance of a

governmental duty. Hood Canal Sand & Gravel, LLC v. Goldmark, 195 Wn. App. 284, 304, 381

P.3d 95 (2016). Not all duties will support a writ of mandamus; the duty must be ministerial, not

discretionary. Id. A writ of mandamus may be issued “only ‘where there is not a plain, speedy

2 No. 55531-0-II

and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.’ ” Bock v. State, 91 Wn.2d 94, 98, 586 P.2d

1173 (1978) (quoting RCW 7.16.170 and RCW 7.16.300).

Our review of a decision concerning a writ of mandamus is subject to two standards of

review depending on the question examined. Cost Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. City of Lakewood, 178

Wn.2d 635, 648-49, 310 P.3d 804 (2013). First, we review de novo whether “a statute specifies a

duty such that mandamus may issue.” Id. at 649. Second, we review “ ‘[w]hether there is a plain,

speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law’ ” for an abuse of discretion. Id.

(alteration in original) (quoting River Park Square, LLC v. Miggins, 143 Wn.2d 68, 76, 17 P.3d

1178 (2001)).

II. APPLICATION

From the face of his petition, Smith is attempting to have his complaints about his PRA

request addressed through a mandamus action. Simply put, writ of mandamus is not the

appropriate remedy for Smith.

A mandamus action may not be maintained where there is a “plain, speedy and adequate

remedy.” RCW 7.16.170. The PRA, itself, affords Smith such a remedy to have his alleged PRA

violations addressed. RCW 42.56.080; Progressive Animal Welfare Soc. v. Univ. of Wash., 125

Wn.2d 243, 250-53, 884 P.2d 592 (1995). Under the PRA, where an agency fails to properly

provide a requester with the record, the requestor may bring an action to compel production. RCW

42.56.550. Smith could bring an action against Golik under the PRA to compel disclosure of the

voicemail.

3 No. 55531-0-II

Because there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law for Smith’s complaints, a writ

of mandamus is not a proper remedy. Accordingly, we affirm the superior court’s dismissal of

Smith’s petition.2, 3

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,

it is so ordered.

PRICE, J. We concur:

GLASGOW, C.J.

MAXA, J.

2 Smith and Golik also devote portions of their briefing to issues of service and access. Golik, for example, says that Smith failed to effectuate service. Smith appears to argue that his access to hearings was impeded because of his custody status. Although it appears some of these issues may be rooted in misunderstandings about both service rules and custody requirements, we do not address them because the fundamental unavailability of the mandamus remedy here is dispositive. 3 Golik requests that Smith be sanctioned for his numerous flagrant misrepresentations in his brief. At this time, we decline to award sanctions.