James D. Mock v. State Of Washington, Department Of Corrections
76097-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 2, 2017Background
- John McKay was on a 12-month community custody term supervised by DOC officer Mark Deabler after a felony harassment conviction; conditions included no contact with his wife.
- Early in supervision McKay’s wife reported numerous red flags (alcohol use, threats, access to firearms). In July 2012 McKay rammed a garage while intoxicated; DOC treated that as a high-level violation and imposed a 30-day administrative sanction under RCW 9.94A.737.
- King County charged McKay with felony malicious mischief; he later pled guilty and the court sentenced him on September 28, 2012 to a drug-offender sentencing alternative (residential treatment) with release to DOC supervision pending entry into treatment.
- Deabler supervised McKay intensively in October (frequent contacts, testing) and believed McKay posed a domestic-violence risk, but he did not report those concerns to the sentencing court or attend the sentencing hearing.
- On October 27, 2012 McKay shot plaintiffs (and others) and then committed suicide. Plaintiffs sued DOC alleging Deabler negligently failed to report McKay’s dangerous propensities to the sentencing court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for DOC. On appeal the court affirmed, holding DOC not immune but concluding no common-law duty required Deabler to report to the court under the statutory administrative scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC/Deabler had absolute immunity for failing to report to the sentencing court | Deabler acted like a witness or quasi-judicial actor and thus is protected from suit | DOC: witness/quasi-judicial immunity covers acts related to supervision or reporting | Court: DOC not entitled to absolute immunity here; witness/quasi-judicial immunity rejected for failure-to-report claim |
| Whether DOC owed a common-law duty to report offender violations to the sentencing court | DOC had a freestanding duty to inform the court of material knowledge about McKay’s dangerous propensities so the court could keep him detained | DOC: statutory scheme (RCW 9.94A.737) makes administrative sanctions exclusive; no duty to report to court | Court: No duty to report—relationship and statutes did not impose a section 319 “take charge” duty to report to the sentencing court |
| Whether statutes or sentence terms required DOC to provide presentence/risk information unasked | Plaintiffs: DOC should have proactively provided risk information and warned the court | DOC: provided required chemical dependency screening; no statute or order required unsolicited reporting | Court: DOC complied with statutory duties; court had discretion to request reports but did not, and DOC had no statutory obligation to volunteer additional material |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Plaintiffs: fact questions about foreseeability and whether reporting would have prevented harm | DOC: no legal duty so judgment for DOC as a matter of law | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for DOC—no duty to report so no actionable negligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Taggart v. State, 118 Wn.2d 195 (judicial/quasi-judicial immunity and section 319 duty context)
- Hertog v. City of Seattle, 138 Wn.2d 265 (summary judgment standard; probation officer duties)
- Joyce v. Dep't of Corr., 155 Wn.2d 306 (duty of community corrections officers under prior statutory scheme)
- Bishop v. Miche, 137 Wn.2d 518 (special-relationship "take charge" duty and probation reporting requirements)
- Nivens v. 7-11 Hoagy's Corner, 133 Wn.2d 192 (limits on generalized duties to prevent third-party criminal acts)
- Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399 (absolute immunity principles)
- Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County, 119 Wn.2d 91 (narrow construction of absolute immunity)
- Tibbits v. Dep't of Corr., 186 Wn. App. 544 (distinguishing quasi-judicial immunity for actions taken within DOC's administrative authority)