Personal Restraint Petition Of Joseph Njuguna Njonge

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Personal Restraint
Petition of:
JOSEPH NJUGUNA NJONGE,
Petitioner.
DIVISION ONE
No. 85468-2-I
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
P ER CURIAM — Joseph Njonge filed this personal restraint petition
challenging the imposition of disciplinary sanctions by the Department of
Corrections (the Department) following an administrative hearing at which he was
found guilty of committing an administrative infraction. Njonge asserts that he is
under restraint by the Department and requests that we reverse the guilty finding,
remove the disciplinary sanctions imposed, and remand the matter for a new
hearing.
Subsequent to the filing of his petition, the Department vacated the finding
of guilt, expunged the infraction in question from its records, and vacated all
sanctions imposed as a result of the hearing. Supplemental Response Br. of
Department of Corrections at 2-3. Thereafter, Njonge was released from the
Department’s custody into the custody of United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement. At the time of the filing of the Department’s supplemental
brief, Njonge was being held in federal custody awaiting his immigration
proceeding. Supplemental Response Br. of Department of Corrections at 1 n.1.

No. 85468-2-I/2
2
As pertinent here, “the appellate court will grant appropriate relief to a
petitioner if the petitioner is under a ‘restraint.’” RAP 16.4(a). However, “[a] case
is moot if a court can no longer provide effective relief.” In re Det. of Cross, 99
Wn.2d 373, 376-77, 662 P.2d 828 (1983) (citing State v. Turner, 98 Wn.2d 731,
733, 658 P.2d 658 (1983)); see also In re. Pers. Restraint of White, 25 Wn. App.
911, 912, 612 P.2d 10 (1980).
Given the foregoing, Njonge is no longer under State restraint. The
Department vacated the guilty finding arising from his commission of an
administrative infraction, expunged the infraction in question from its records, and
vacated all sanctions imposed as a result of the hearing. In addition, he is no
longer under the custody of the Department. He is, therefore, not under restraint
imposed by the State of Washington. The actions taken by the Department
exceed in benefit the relief he requested herein (the grant of a new hearing).
Thus, we can no longer provide effective relief in response to his petition. RAP
16.4(a); Cross, 99 Wn.2d at 376-77; White, 25 Wn. App. at 912. Accordingly, his
personal restraint petition is moot and his petition is dismissed.
For the Court: