The Washington State Court of Appeals, Division 3., dismissed the Personal
Restraint Petition (PRP), of Waldo E. Waldron-Ramsey, after the Washington
Department of Corrections (WDOC), expunged the infraction's he had been
found guilty of, and restored his good conduct credits that he had lost as
a result of the infractions.

Waldron-Ramsey, is a Washington prisoner who was transferred to a private
prison (Crowley), in Colorado. On March 6, 1999, while at Crowley,
Waldron-Ramsey, was placed in segregation without explanation. After 24
days in segregation he was served with a hearing notice, stating that he
would have a hearing the next day, for allegedly violating, WAC-651:
"Inciting others to riot," and WAC-604: "Aggravated assault on a staff
member." At the hearing, Waldorn-Ramsey claimed that he had been prejudiced
because, a) he had not been served with an infraction report before the
hearing, and as a result he was unable to prepare a defense. b) He could
not be found guilty of WAC-651 and 604, because the Washington
Administrative Code's (WAC'S), stop at 500, and that neither WAC-651, nor
WAC-604, exist. c) He could not be found guilty of an aggravated assault on
a staff member because Crowley employees were not employees, staff or
volunteers of the WDOC. The hearing officer found Waldron-Ramsey guilty
based on the infraction report and sentenced him to 20 days of disciplinary
segregation, 10 days isolation and 540 days loss of good conduct credits.
He appealed the hearing officer's decision to the Warden of Crowley and was
denied. Shortly after the warden's rejection of the appeal, Crowley placed
Waldron-Ramsey on administrative segregation for 1 year, for being found
guilty of WAC-604, and 651.

In October 1999, Waldron-Ramsey, filed a PRP, claiming that his minimum due
process rights were violated at the disciplinary hearing because he was not
served in a timely manner or served with an infraction report and was
unable to prepare a defense. Also, there was no evidence to support the
finding of guilt, and finally Crowley did not have jurisdiction to punish
him as they were not employed by the WDOC. The WDOC replied to the PRP, by
restoring Waldron-Ramsey's good time and expunging the infractions from his
record, and argued that the issue was moot. In May 2000, the Washington
Court of Appeals, Division 3, dismissed his PRP citing that the WDOC had
expunged the infractions from his record and restored his good time credits
making the PRP moot. However, in December 2000, the WDOC filed a cost bill
in the amount of $125.00 attempting to make Waldron-Ramsey pay for
statutory attorneys fees. Waldron-Ramsey, objected to the request for
costs, pointing out that the purpose of a PRP is to remove the unlawful
restraint, and once that goal is achieved the petitioner has prevailed. He
argued that since the WDOC restored his good time and expunged the
infractions from his record; he was clearly the prevailing party. The Clerk
of the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division 3, denied the WDOC's
request for costs. See: In Re PRP of Waldron-Ramsey, Case No. 18876-1-111
(Wash.App.Div.3. 2000). The case is unpublished.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case