Personal Restraint Petition Of Dylan James Downey

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF THE PERSONAL
RESTRAINT OF:
DYLAN JAMES DOWNEY
Petitioner.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 81861-9
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
A NDRUS , A.C.J. – Dylan James Downey filed this personal restraint petition
(PRP) 	alleging 	that 	the 	conditions 	of 	his 	confinement 	in 	prison 	were
unconstitutional due to the Department of Correction’s (DOC) failure to protect him
from the spread of COVID-19. 	Shortly after filing his petition, however, Downey
was released from confinement into community custody. 	Because this court can
no longer provide the relief he requests, we dismiss the petition as moot.
FACTS
In 2020, Downey was incarcerated at the Monroe Correctional Complex
(MCC) serving a sentence for vehicular assault. 	He filed this personal restrain
petition on September 14, 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, alleging
that the prison’s failure to test inmates being introduced to the general population
and its lack of proper COVID-19 safety protocols violated the prohibition against
cruel 	and 	unusual 	punishment 	in 	the 	state 	and 	federal 	constitutions, 	the

No. 81861-9-I/2
- 2 -
Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD),1 and the 14th Amendment to the
United States Constitution. 	Downey sought an order for his immediate release.
DOC filed a response on November 13, 2020, documenting its COVID-19
response plans and policies.
ANALYSIS
To obtain relief through a PRP, a petitioner challenging the conditions of his
confinement must show he is being unlawfully restrained under RAP 16.4. In Pers.
Restraint 	of 	Williams, 	No. 	99344-1, 	slip 	op. 	at 	8 	(Wash. 	Oct. 	7, 	2021),
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/993441.pdf. 	In 	this 	case, 	Downey
challenges the constitutionality of his prison conditions and requested that we
order his immediate release. 	But Downey has since been released from prison
into community custody. 	Because Downey is no longer in prison and he has
obtained the relief he seeks, his petition is moot. See In Pers. Restraint of Cross,
99 Wn.2d 373, 376-77, 662 P.2d 828 (1983) (“A case is moot if a court can no
longer provide effective relief.”)
Downey asks us to reach the merits of his case because it involves matters
of continuing and substantial public interest. In deciding whether a case fits within
the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, we consider (1) the public
or private nature of the question presented, (2) the desirability of an authoritative
determination for the future guidance of public officers, and (3) the likelihood of
future recurrence of the question. 	In re Det. of M.W., 185 Wn.2d 633, 648, 374
P.3d 1123 (2016).
1 Ch. 49.60 RCW.

No. 81861-9-I/3
- 3 -
While DOC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic is undoubtedly an issue
of public importance, the Supreme Court and this court have issued several
opinions providing guidance for public officers on substantially similar issues. See
Williams, slip op. at 7 (DOC’s failure to provide reasonable access to bathroom
facilities and running water and access to readily available medical staff violated
wheelchair-bound inmate’s rights under article I, section 14 of state constitution);
Colvin 	v. 	Inslee, 195 Wn.2d 879, 	467 P.3d 	953 	(2020) 	(inmates failed 	to
demonstrate DOC was deliberately indifferent to serious harm from COVID-19
outbreak in violation of 8th Amendment); In Pers. Restraint of Pauley, 13 Wn. App.
2d 292, 466 P.3d 245 (2020) (inmate’s conditions of confinement at MCC did not
violate 8th or 14th Amendments). 	In light of these cases, Downey has not
demonstrated a need for an authoritative determination for the future guidance of
public officers. We thus decline to apply the public interest exception and dismiss
Downey’s petition as moot.
WE CONCUR: