Washington Court of Appeals Refuses to Let DOC Play “Both Sides” with State Prisoner
by Chuck Sharman
When Washington Department of Corrections (DOC) guards failed to provide prisoner Jess Richard Smith with the required notice of his disciplinary sanction, he didn’t serve it—and a DOC hearing officer meted out additional punishment, accusing Smith of attempting to play “both sides of the line” to exploit the error. But the Court of Appeals of Washington turned the tables on Smith’s captors on October 7, 2024, granting his personal restraint petition (PRP) and ordering the DOC to vacate findings of guilt in his disciplinary case.
Smith’s initial disciplinary infraction was issued by guards at Coyote Ridge Correctional Center in April 2023 “for possessing a television that did not belong to him,” the Court recalled, earning the prisoner sanctions of “10 days cell confinement [and] 15 days loss of yard and gym.” Pursuant to DOC Policy 460.000 § III(G)(1), a guard named Cress gave Smith a DOC 17-085 Sanction Notification on May 2, 2023, detailing the dates when it must be served. But the form was filled out for fellow prisoner Steven Smith for his 10-day sanction, which had ended the day before. Jess Richard Smith signed for the notice, but he informed Cress that it wasn’t for him.
When guard Natalay Guajardo found Smith watching TV in the prison dayroom on May 5, 2023, she accused him of breaking his cell confinement sanctions. He replied that “they got the wrong Smith.” Guajardo called in fellow guard Cesar Martinez, and Smith challenged him to present the signed notice form that would prove he was supposed to be serving a sanction. But the guard said only the Unit Sergeant had access to that. He also asked Smith to present the notice that he signed for, but the prisoner said he didn’t know where it was. Both guards then filed infraction reports against Smith for ignoring the earlier sanction, and he pleaded not guilty.
At the disciplinary hearing, Smith said that he couldn’t report the mistake to Sgt. Mooney until May 16, 2023. Mooney corroborated this, adding that the prisoner expressed concern that the unserved sanction, which was by then expired, would restart. Mooney also testified that he—not Cress—had provided a notice form to Smith with the correct name, sanction and dates, attaching an unsigned copy. The hearing officer then found Smith guilty of the two infractions that Guajardo and Martinez wrote up. It was clear that Smith “is playing both sides of the line,” the hearing officer wrote, “telling Sgt. Mooney that he has been serving the sanction and not wanting it to start over and also trying to not serve the sanction and claim ignorance.”
Smith then filed his PRP with the Court, which identified the issue at stake was not whether Smith received notice of his sanction but its dates. Noting that written records “are of significant importance to both DOC and inmates,” the Court found nothing to indicate that Smith was informed of the dates his sanction was to be served before it started. Sgt. Mooney claimed that he got Smith to sign the notice that contained the sanction dates, but he could produce only an unsigned copy, which did not prove it. In fact, the Court said that it wasn’t until Guajardo and Martinez charged the subsequent infractions on May 5 and 6 that Smith might have been put on notice that his sanction had already started.
The DOC argued that Smith had no right to demand a copy of the notice that Mooney said he signed. “But this misconstrues the argument,” the Court said. Notice properly served with a DOC official’s signature might prove that Smith was aware of the sanction dates, even if he didn’t sign for it. But what Sgt. Mooney produced had no signatures at all. Failing to find “any evidence to support that Smith was fairly notified of the dates during which he was to serve his sanction prior to the dates he was charged for violating such sanction,” the Court declared the subsequent sanctions void.
Notably, it was the DOC that the Court refused to let “play both sides of the line” and discipline Smith for failing to observe a sanction on dates that its staff had failed to provide him. The Court’s decision marked a rare victory for a prisoner challenging disciplinary proceedings. But it shows that successful challenge is possible when those proceedings are glaringly incomplete. See: In re Pers. Restraint of Smith, 2024 Wash. App. LEXIS 2046 (Ct. App.).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login