IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

MARLENE GONZALES, an individual; 

REBECCA HOFFARTH, an individual; 

APRIL LONG, an individual; and 

VICTORIA TAPIA, an individual,

Appellants,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON, 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

a department of the State of Washington,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 39410-7-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

COONEY, J. — Marlene Gonzales, Rebecca Hoffarth, April Long, and Victoria 

Tapia (collectively “Plaintiffs”) sued the Department of Corrections (DOC) for invasion 

of privacy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under Washington’s common law right to 

privacy. The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the DOC who served as mail 

processors at the Coyote Ridge Correction Center (CRCC). In May 2019, Ms. Long

opened an envelope that contained a crystalline substance. As a precaution, DOC 

personnel subjected the Plaintiffs to a decontamination procedure. 

The Plaintiffs first filed their complaint in federal court and, after it was dismissed, 

filed a complaint in state court. The DOC moved for summary judgment on the state 

FILED

NOVEMBER 9, 2023

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals Division III
No. 39410-7-III

Gonzales, et al. v. Dep’t of Corr.

2

court claims, asserting that res judicata barred the Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims

and, as it related to their common law right to privacy claims, that the Plaintiffs failed to 

produce evidence of intent on the part of the DOC or its agents.

1

 The trial court agreed 

and granted the DOC’s motion. The Plaintiffs timely appealed. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The Plaintiffs are current and former CRCC mailroom employees. CRCC is a 

DOC facility. While the Plaintiffs were processing mail on May 24, 2019, Ms. Long 

opened an envelope that contained a crystalline substance.

2

 The Plaintiffs’ potential 

exposure to the unknown substance was reported to Sergeant Turner.3 Sam Harris, 

facilities manager at CRCC, and Dorothy Trainer, environmental specialist for CRCC, 

responded to the report. Mr. Harris and Ms. Trainer constructed a screened-off 

decontamination area using tarps and decontamination pallets. Ms. Trainer conducted the 

decontamination by instructing the Plaintiffs to undress before hosing them down in the 

tented area. The Plaintiffs were then given offender clothing or blankets and were 

instructed to change into them inside of a nearby DOC van. 

 

1 The DOC also moved for dismissal of Ms. Long’s and Ms. Hoffarth’s claims 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing they lacked standing since they are no longer employed 

with the DOC. 

2 The substance later tested positive for amphetamines. 

3

It is unclear from the record what Sergeant Turner’s first name is.
No. 39410-7-III

Gonzales, et al. v. Dep’t of Corr.

3

FEDERAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

The Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Washington, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the DOC violated 

their right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 

Plaintiffs also alleged that the DOC violated Washington’s common law right to privacy. 

A few months later, the Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims with 

prejudice and the common law right to privacy claims without prejudice. On January 5, 

2021, a stipulated order was entered that dismissed the Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

claims with prejudice and their common law right to privacy claims without prejudice. 

STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS

The Plaintiffs then filed suit in the Franklin County Superior Court. In their 

complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that the DOC violated their Fourth Amendment right to 

privacy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and violated Washington’s common law right to 

privacy. Unlike the complaint filed in federal court, the complaint filed in state court 

requested injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Aside from this difference, the 

federal and state court complaints were nearly identical. Compare Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 

3-6 with CP at 74-80. 

The DOC moved for summary judgment, asserting res judicata barred Plaintiffs’ 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims and there was no evidence of intent to support their common 
No. 39410-7-III

Gonzales, et al. v. Dep’t of Corr.

4

law right to privacy claims. The trial court agreed and granted the DOC’s motion, 

thereby dismissing all of the Plaintiffs’ claims. The Plaintiffs timely appealed. 

ANALYSIS

On appeal, the Plaintiffs argue that res judicata was inapplicable to their 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 claims and that they were not required to prove intent as part of their common law 

invasion of privacy claims. The Plaintiffs also contend that even if they were required to 

prove intent, an issue of fact remained as to whether there was sufficient intent to invade

their privacy. 

This court reviews orders on summary judgment de novo, engaging in the same 

inquiry as the trial court. Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358, 370, 357 P.3d 1080 (2015). 

Summary judgment is only appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact and 

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 370; CR 56(c). The 

moving party bears the initial burden of establishing that there are no disputed issues of 

material fact. Young v. Key Pharm., Inc., 112 Wn.2d 216, 225, 770 P.2d 182 (1989). 

“A material fact is one upon which the outcome of the litigation depends in whole or in 

part.” Atherton Condo. Apartment-Owners Ass’n Bd. of Dirs. v. Blume Dev. Co., 115 

Wn.2d 506, 516, 799 P.2d 250 (1990).

When considering a motion for summary judgment, evidence is considered in a 

light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Keck, 184 Wn.2d at 370. If the moving 

party satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to establish there 
No. 39410-7-III

Gonzales, et al. v. Dep’t of Corr.

5

is a genuine issue for the trier of fact. Young, 112 Wn.2d at 225-26. While questions of 

fact typically are left to the trial process, they may be treated as a matter of law if 

“reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion.” Hartley v. State, 103 Wn.2d 768, 

775, 698 P.2d 77 (1985). 

Further, a nonmoving party may not rely on speculation or having its own 

affidavits accepted at face value. Seven Gables Corp. v. MGM/UA Entm’t Co., 106 

Wn.2d 1, 13, 721 P.2d 1 (1986). Instead, a nonmoving party must put “forth specific 

facts that sufficiently rebut the moving party’s contentions and disclose that a genuine 

issue as to a material fact exists.” Id.

RES JUDICATA

The Plaintiffs argue that res judicata does not bar their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims

because the suit in federal court, which was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a 

stipulated motion, was not a final judgment on the merits. They further contend that res 

judicata is inapplicable due to a lack of identity between the federal court and state court 

claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the federal claims did not request injunctive relief 

whereas their claims in state court did. We disagree. 

“Res judicata precludes relitigation of an entire claim when a prior proceeding 

involving the same parties and issues culminated in a judgment on the merits.” Weaver v. 

City of Everett, 194 Wn.2d 464, 480, 450 P.3d 177 (2019). If a claim is barred by res 

judicata, it is grounds for summary judgment dismissal. Penner v. Cent. Puget Sound 
No. 39410-7-III

Gonzales, et al. v. Dep’t of Corr.

6

Transit Auth., 25 Wn. App. 2d 914, 923-31, 525 P.3d 1010, review denied, 1 Wn.3d 

1026, 534 P.3d 788 (2023). Res judicata requires identity between the prior final 

judgment and the subsequent action in (1) subject matter, (2) cause of action, (3) persons 

and parties, and (4) the quality of persons for whom or against the claim is made. 

Weaver, 194 Wn.2d at 480. Res judicata also requires a final judgment on the merits. 

Schoeman v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 106 Wn.2d 855, 860, 726 P.2d 1 (1986). 

In support of their contention that the stipulated order that dismissed their 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims with prejudice did not constitute a final judgment on the merits, 

the Plaintiffs cite Pederson v. Potter.

4 The Plaintiffs claim Pederson holds that a consent 

judgment, such as a stipulated dismissal, does not always constitute a final judgment on 

the merits for res judicata purposes. The court in Pederson defined “on the merits” as: 

“In order that a judgment or decree should be on the merits, it is not 

necessary that the litigation should be determined on the merits, in the 

moral or abstract sense of these words. It is sufficient that the status of the 

action was such that the parties might have had their suit thus disposed of, 

if they had properly presented and managed their respective cases.”

103 Wn. App. at 70 (quoting CenTrust Mortg. Corp. v. Smith & Jenkins PC, 220 Ga. 

App. 394, 397, 469 S.E.2d 466 (1996). Based on this definition, the court concluded, 

“the confession of judgment would qualify as a judgment on the merits because the 

Pedersons knew of their potential claims against the Potters when they settled and signed 

 

4 103 Wn. App. 62, 11 P.3d 833 (2000). 
No. 39410-7-III

Gonzales, et al. v. Dep’t of Corr.

7

the confession of judgment.” Id. at 71. “They had the opportunity to be heard on [their] 

claims, and have them disposed of, but chose not to do so.” Id.

Similarly, here, the Plaintiffs had the opportunity to be heard on their 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 claims, yet instead chose to enter a stipulated motion to dismiss the claims with 

prejudice. “A dismissal with prejudice constitutes a final judgment on the merits.” Elliot 

Bay Adjustment Co. v. Dacumos, 200 Wn. App. 208, 213, 401 P.3d 473 (2017); see also 

Marshall v. Thurston County, 165 Wn. App. 346, 357, 267 P.3d 491 (2011). The 

stipulated order that dismissed the Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims with prejudice is a 

final judgment on the merits for purposes of res judicata. 

Turning to Plaintiffs’ argument regarding the identity of the causes of action,

Marshall v. Thurston County is instructive. In Marshall, Division Two of this court 

found the same cause of action where plaintiffs sued the same defendant twice, noting 

that “[e]xcept for the separate damages . . . all of the evidence necessary to recover on 

each suit is identical.” Marshall, 165 Wn. App. at 354. Similarly, here, all of the 

evidence necessary to prevail on the Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims in state court is 

identical to that in federal court. The only difference between Plaintiffs’ claims in federal 

court and their claims in state court is the remedy requested. CP at 1-6, 74-80. In state 

court, the Plaintiffs requested injunctive relief whereas in federal court they requested 

attorney fees and damages. We have held that “an injunction is a remedy, not an 

independent cause of action.” Markoff v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc., 9 Wn. App. 2d 833, 
No. 39410-7-III

Gonzales, et al. v. Dep’t of Corr.

8

851, 447 P.3d 577 (2019). For purposes of res judicata, there exists an identity between 

the federal court and state court 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 claims in state court is barred. With this holding, we need not address the 

DOC’s lack of standing argument related to Ms. Long and Ms. Hoffarth. 

COMMON LAW INVASION OF PRIVACY

The Plaintiffs next contend that when the government is alleged to have violated

article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution, intent is not a factor. The 

Plaintiffs further argue that if intent is a necessary factor, a genuine issue of material fact 

exists as to whether the DOC or its agents acted intentionally. We disagree.

A person may sue the government for common law invasion of privacy if it 

intentionally intrudes on his or her solitude, seclusion, or private affairs. Reid v. Pierce 

County, 136 Wn.2d 195, 206, 213-14, 961 P.2d 333 (1998); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF 

TORTS § 652D (AM. L. INST. 1977). “The intruder must have acted deliberately to 

achieve the result, with the certain belief that the result would happen.” Fisher v. Dep’t 

of Health, 125 Wn. App. 869, 879, 106 P.3d 836 (2005). The intrusion, whether physical 

or nonphysical, must substantially interfere with the plaintiff’s seclusion in a way that 

is highly offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person. Mark v. Seattle Times, 

96 Wn.2d 473, 497, 635 P.2d 1081 (1981). Although intent is not a factor for violations

under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution, our Supreme Court has declined 

the invitation to create a constitutional cause of action for privacy invasions by the 
No. 39410-7-III

Gonzales, et al. v. Dep’t of Corr.

9

government. Id. at 497; Reid, 136 Wn.2d at 213-14. We have followed suit. Youker v. 

Douglas County, 178 Wn. App. 793, 797, 327 P.3d 1243 (2014). 

Under Washington’s common law right of privacy, precedent is clear⎯intent is a 

factor even when the intruder is the government. See Mark, 96 Wn.2d at 497; Reid, 136 

Wn.2d at 213-14. The Plaintiffs’ argument that they need not prove that the DOC or its 

agents intentionally invaded their privacy is unpersuasive. 

Based on the record, reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion⎯that the 

DOC or its agents lacked any intent to invade the Plaintiffs’ right of privacy. None of the 

Plaintiffs were able to confirm that anyone other than Ms. Trainer, who was in charge of 

the decontamination, saw them unclothed. Further, in response to the Plaintiffs’ 

allegation that they were made to move to the DOC van while visibly in a state of 

undress, the DOC produced deposition transcript excerpts from each plaintiff conceding

they were, in fact, given blankets or clothing to cover themselves as they made their way 

to the van. CP at 128-29, 132, 135-37, 140.

The Plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence that the DOC or its agents acted 

with intent to invade their privacy. Other than allegations made in their complaint, the 

Plaintiffs lack evidence demonstrating that the decontamination was inappropriate or that 

DOC or its agents acted deliberately to violate their right to privacy. 
No. 39410-7-III

Gonzales, et al. v. Dep’t of Corr.

10

CONCLUSION

Res judicata bars the Plaintiffs from reasserting their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims in 

state court. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order granting summary judgment 

dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because the Plaintiffs have 

failed to present sufficient evidence that the DOC or its agents acted with intent, we 

affirm the trial court’s order granting summary judgment dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ 

claims under Washington’s common law right of privacy.

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 

2.06.040.

Cooney, J.

WE CONCUR:

Pennell, J.

Staab, J.