Donovan Allen, V State Of Washington
498 P.3d 552
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2021Background:
- Donovan Allen was convicted of first-degree murder in 2002, imprisoned for 13 years, and post-conviction DNA testing excluded him.
- His conviction was vacated and charges dismissed; he sued the City of Longview and settled that suit for $3 million in January 2019.
- Allen filed a claim under the Wrongly Convicted Persons Act (WCPA), chapter 4.100 RCW, on December 18, 2018 seeking compensation and relief from the State.
- The State moved for summary judgment based on RCW 4.100.080(1)’s exclusive-remedy/waiver provision because of Allen’s settlement with the City; the trial court applied CR 56 and granted summary judgment.
- Allen appealed arguing (1) WCPA actions are “special proceedings” exempting them from CR 56 procedures, and (2) the settlement did not bar his WCPA claim or declaratory/noneconomic relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed; one judge dissented.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of CR 56/special-proceeding rules | WCPA actions are special proceedings under CR 81, so CR 56 procedures do not apply | Civil rules govern unless a statute is inconsistent; plaintiff must show conflict | WCPA is a special proceeding, but CR 56 is not inconsistent with the WCPA, so summary judgment procedures were proper |
| Whether prior settlement with City bars WCPA claim under RCW 4.100.080(1) | RCW 4.100.080(1) does not prohibit filing a WCPA after obtaining a non-WCPA remedy; statute doesn’t address this scenario | The statute makes WCPA the exclusive remedy when pursued; a prior non-WCPA recovery prevents the required waiver and thus bars WCPA relief | Court held the $3M settlement constituted an election of a non-WCPA remedy and, as a matter of law, barred Allen’s WCPA claim |
| Availability of declaratory judgment and noneconomic benefits despite settlement | Even if monetary recovery is barred, Allen can still obtain declaratory judgment of innocence and noneconomic benefits under the WCPA | The exclusive-remedy and waiver provisions bar any WCPA relief if claimant already accepted a non-WCPA remedy | Court held those forms of WCPA relief were also foreclosed by the settlement and RCW 4.100.080(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jametsky v. Olsen, 179 Wn.2d 756 (2014) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Medical Ctr., P.S., 166 Wn.2d 974 (2009) (definition of “special proceeding” for CR 81 purposes)
- In re Det. of Meints, 123 Wn. App. 99 (2004) (statutory procedure displaces civil rules only when inconsistent)
- Wash. Imaging Servs., LLC v. Dep’t of Revenue, 171 Wn.2d 548 (2011) (summary judgment principles and treating legal-application questions as questions of law)
- Larson v. State, 9 Wn. App. 2d 730 (2019) (RCW 4.100.080(1) conditions compensation on waiver/release of other claims)
- Brummett v. Washington’s Lottery, 171 Wn. App. 664 (2012) (motion to dismiss converted to summary judgment where extrinsic evidence was submitted)