Marvin Hunter v. Dept. Of Corrections

• Court: Court of Appeals of Washington
• Decided: February 4, 2014
• Docket: 44675-8
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

F1.: tl MIRT OF APPEALS DMSIB ii

2014 FEB - 4 AM 9= 19 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON S IAA c 0i= tiMS1-11 ? 4OT011

DIVISION II B` r'__

MARVIN HUNTER, No. 44675 -8 -II

Appellant,

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF UNPUBLISHED OPINION CORRECTIONS,

PENOYAR, J. — Marvin Hunter appeals from the trial court' s denial of his request for an

in camera review of documents Department of Corrections ( DOC) withheld after a public

1 records request. The court based its decision on its sua sponte determination that Hunter' s

counsel' s May 3, 2010 letter, requesting the opportunity to review Hunter' s DOC central file, 2 was not a request for records under the Public Records Act ( PRA) . DOC concedes that the trial

court erred when it determined that Hunter' s counsel' s letter was not a request under the PRA. It

asks that' we remand to the trial court for the court to exercise its discretion in determining

whether an in camera review is needed and for further proceedings consistent with that

determination. Hunter agrees with the concession of error but asks that we direct the trial court

to conduct the in camera review that he requested, contending that that court has no discretion to

refuse to conduct an in camera review. Seattle Times Co. v. Serko, 170 Wn.2d 581, 593 -94, 243

P. 3d 919 ( 2010).

I A commissioner of this court initially considered Hunter' s appeal as a motion on the merits under RAP 18. 14 and then transferred it to a panel of judges. He also appeals from the trial court' s March 21, 2013 order granting him attorney fees only as to the 10 pages of documents that DOC untimely produced. CP 666 -68. 2 Ch. 42. 56 RCW. 44675 -8 -II

We accept DOC' s concession of error and decline to direct the trial court in the way

Hunter requests. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court' s January 4, 2013 order on plaintiff' s

motion for partial summary judgment and for in camera inspection, its January 24, 2013 ruling

denying Hunter' s motion for reconsideration of the January 4, 2013 Order, and its March 21, 2013 order and judgment on plaintiff' s motion for attorney fees and penalties. We remand for

determination in camera review is required. We further proceedings, including a of whether an

refer Hunter' s request for attorney fees on appeal to the trial court, under RCW 42. 56. 550( 4), but

we award Hunter his statutory costs on appeal, under chapter 4. 84 RCW.

We vacate and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

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.

J

Maxa, J.