Carlos J. Williams v. Wa State Department Of Corrections ( 2019 )

Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
July 2, 2019
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
CARLOS JOHN WILLIAMS, No. 50440-5-II
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Respondent.
SUTTON, J. — Carlos J. Williams appeals the superior court’s order granting the
Department of Corrections’ (DOC) motion for summary judgment dismissal of his claims for
copies of his mental health treatment plan under the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56
RCW, and the Uniform Health Care Information Act (UHCIA), chapter 70.02 RCW. However,
Williams failed to designate essential documents in the record on appeal. Accordingly, we hold
that Williams’s failure to provide a record sufficient to review the issues raised on appeal precludes
appellate review and we affirm.
FACTS
Carlos Williams is a prisoner confined at the Monroe Correctional Complex’s special
offender unit. On June 20, 2014, Williams filed a pro se complaint against the DOC alleging that
No. 50440-5-II
DOC had violated the PRA by not providing him a copy of his mental health treatment plan, which
he had requested via kites to his counselor and other prison staff.
According to DOC’s response brief on appeal, DOC moved to dismiss Williams’s
complaint, arguing that the UHCIA, not the PRA, was Williams’s exclusive avenue for relief.
However, the motion to dismiss is not included in the record on appeal.
On September 23, 2014, Williams, through counsel, filed a motion to amend his complaint
to add a claim under the UHCIA. Presumably, the superior court granted Williams’s motion to
amend his complaint. However, neither an order on the motion nor the amended complaint is
included in the record on appeal.1 It appears that Williams’s counsel subsequently withdrew.
DOC then, allegedly, filed a motion for summary judgment which the superior court
granted in part. Neither DOC’s motion nor the superior court’s order is included in the record on
appeal. Subsequently, the superior court granted summary judgment dismissal of Williams’s
remaining claims and dismissed Williams’s action with prejudice. The superior court’s order
granting summary judgment dismissal is also not included in the record on appeal. 2
Williams timely appeals the order dismissing his case.
1
A copy of the proposed amended complaint is included in the record as an attachment to the
motion to file an amended complaint. However, the complaint is unsigned and unfiled.
2
The order granting summary judgment on Williams’s remaining claims is attached to Williams’s
notice of appeal. But attachments to the notice of appeal are not officially part of the record.
Moreover, the order does not shed any light on the underlying motions, which are essential to our
review.
2
No. 50440-5-II
ANALYSIS
Williams has provided a limited record on appeal and has not provided verbatim reports of
the superior court proceedings. An appellant must provide a record sufficient to review the issues
raised on appeal. RAP 9.2(b); Stiles v. Kearney, 168 Wn. App. 250, 259, 277 P.3d 9 (2012). The
failure to do so precludes appellate review. Stiles, 168 Wn. App. at 259. We hold pro se parties
to the same standards as attorneys. Edwards v. Le Duc, 157 Wn. App. 455, 460, 238 P.3d 1187(2010).
Here, Williams failed to designate essential portions of the superior court record to enable
our review of the alleged errors. This record does not contain Williams’s amended complaint,
DOC’s motion to dismiss, DOC’s motion for summary judgment, the superior court’s order
dismissing parts of Williams’s claims, or the order granting summary judgment on Williams’s
remaining claims. Without these documents, we cannot review the superior court’s decision
dismissing Williams’s claims.
Accordingly, we affirm the superior court.
ATTORNEY FEES
Williams requests an award of attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the UHCIA. The
UHCIA provides that “[t]he court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and all other expenses
reasonably incurred to the prevailing party.” RCW 70.02.170(2). However, pro se litigants are
3
No. 50440-5-II
generally not entitled to attorney fees for their work representing themselves. Mitchell v. Dep’t of
Corr., 164 Wn. App. 597, 608, 277 P.3d 670 (2011). Moreover, Williams is not the prevailing
party. Accordingly, we deny his request.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040,
it is so ordered.
SUTTON, J.
We concur:
MAXA, C.J.
MELNICK, J.
4