Skip navigation
× You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.

$45,500 Settlement over Washington Prison Psychologist’s Improper Reference to Prisoner’s Litigation History in Parole Review Report

A $45,500 Settlement was reached in a suit filed for illegal references to court actions, legal complaints and grievance activity in a psychological evaluation report for a parole review.

Alvin L. Gilcrist filed a suit in Washington State court on October 8, 2002, raising claims of First and Fourteenth Amendment violations, as well as numerous state law violations. Gilcrist was given several therapy sessions by Dr. Paul C. Daley, a psychologist employed by Washington Department of corrections (WDOC). During these sessions, Daley viewed documents and discussed Gilcrist’s legal and grievance filings.
Gilcrist informed Daley that this material was confidential and should not be used in any of Daley’s official reports. Despite the warnings, Daley quoted and referred to these filings to some extent in his report to the parole review board. Upon discovering this, Gilcrist had his parole review postponed, fearing that the boards’ viewing of this information would harm his chances of parole, and began filing to have Daley’s report removed from his file and replaced with one from a different psychologist. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Gilcrist filed suit on October 8, 2002. The same suit was refilled by Gilcrist’s attorney on October 18, 2002 and the cases were later consolidated. The suit raised claims of violations of right to privacy, due process, as well as state law violations.

Settlement was reached on February 4, 2004. His attorney, Michael W. Gendler of Seattle, received $40,000 and Gilcrist received $5,500, as well as the removal of Daley’s report from all WDOC files.

See: Gilcrist v. Daley, State of Washington, Thurston County Superior Court, Case No.:02-2-01899-3.

As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case

Gilcrist v. Daley