IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

PETER J. MCDANIELS,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

DIVISION ONE

No. 81828-7-I

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

DWYER, J. — Peter McDaniels appeals from an order dismissing his action 

under the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW, against the 

Department of Corrections (DOC). McDaniels contends that the superior court 

erred by finding no violation of the PRA because a record maintained by the 

Department of Enterprise Services (DES) was responsive to his requests. 

Because DOC did not withhold responsive records, we affirm. 

I

Correctional Industries is a division of DOC. DOC uses a standardized 

meal menu, developed by Correctional Industries, in all DOC facilities. The 

standardized menu dictates what foods are served to inmates in DOC facilities. 

Correctional Industries also operates several food factories which produce many 

of the items on the standardized menu. DOC facilities are expected to purchase 

food products from Correctional Industries when it can supply what is necessary 

to comply with the menu. 
No. 81828-7-I/2

2

There is no contract between DOC and Correctional Industries because 

Correctional Industries is a division of DOC. When food items are needed that 

Correctional Industries cannot provide, DOC facilities purchase those items from 

vendors that have entered into a master contract administered by DES. This is

known as the “umbrella food contract” or DES contract No. 06006. DOC 

employees are only authorized to purchase products that have been identified to 

meet the standardized menu. Correctional Industries has never sold products to 

DOC institutions under DES contract No. 06006. 

McDaniels is an inmate at a DOC facility, Stafford Creek Corrections 

Center. In 2013, McDaniels filed a grievance complaining that, several days in a 

row, the meat he had been given was rotten. He was told in response that 

“[Stafford Creek Corrections Center] is under contract with [Correctional 

Industries] Food Factory and we do not have the ability to change or revoke a 

contract at [this] level.” 

On March 10, 2017, McDaniels made the following public records request

to DOC’s public disclosure unit:

I am requesting copies of the following public records: Often, when 

I file complaints or interview DOC & [Stafford Creek Corrections 

Center] staff members in reference to the menus and the foods that 

are actually being served to inmates at [Stafford Creek Corrections 

Center] from the Kitchen/Dining Hall, the DOC/[Stafford Creek 

Corrections Center] staff member will claim that they are following 

the menu and the “contract” says we are not allowed to alter the 

menu. My public disclosure request is for any and all contracts and 

other agreements and other documentation that dictates what the 

[Stafford Creek Corrections Center] Kitchen must serve to inmates 

for their three daily meals (including holidays and brunches) and 

what the [Stafford Creek Corrections Center] Kitchen can and 

cannot serve when altering, adding to, and subtracting from all of 

the numerous menu/diets offered in policy (i.e. dictating all written 
No. 81828-7-I/3

3

menus). I am only looking for Contracts, agreements, and 

documentation. I am not requesting policies that I have access to 

already in the law library; and I am not looking for the menus unless 

they are specifically mentioned in the contract, agreement, and 

documentation as attachments thereto. Please do not alter the 

above request in your response. The above is exactly what I am 

looking for. 

Public records specialist Donna Williams acknowledged receipt of the 

request and assigned it tracking number PRU-46351. Williams determined that if 

responsive documents existed, they would be either at Stafford Creek 

Corrections Center, in DOC Correctional Industries, DOC Health Services, DOC 

Policy Unit, or in DOC’s Contracts Unit. Williams contacted these departments. 

None of the records Williams received from these departments responded to 

McDaniels’ request. On May 18, 2017, Williams advised McDaniels that DOC 

had no records responsive to his request and closed the request. 

Several months later, McDaniels had the following exchange through 

kiosk messages with the Stafford Creek Corrections Center’s superintendent’s

office:

[McDaniels:] SUPR. GILBERT, YOU HAVE A RIGHT AND A DUTY 

TO PETITION YOUR GOVERNMENT TO HAVE 

[CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES] FOOD SERVICES REMOVED 

FROM THIS FACILITY. FOR MORE THAN DOUBLE THE PRICE, 

WE ARE RECEIVING POORER QUALITY FOOD. RCW 39 

OUTLINES THE MEANS FOR YOU TO START YOUR 

RESEARCH.

[Superintendent’s Office:] This is a contract set up through 

Headquarters. – MJ Supt office

[McDaniels:] THANK YOU FOR YOUR 8-22-17 RESPONSE 

ABOUT THE FOOD CONTRACT SET UP BY DOC HQ. PLEASE 

PROVIDE ME WITH THE CONTRACT #, THE CONTACT 

MANAGER-S NAME AND MAILING INFORMATION FOR 

HIM/HER. THANK YOU. MCDANIELS, PETER J. 
No. 81828-7-I/4

4

[Superintendent’s Office:] I am unsure of this, you would need to 

contact Headquarters for this information. M Johnson supt office

McDaniels made a second public records disclosure request on 

September 1, 2017:

Hello, I was sent a kiosk message from the mailbox 

“Superintendent-S01” on 8/22/2017 that reads, “This is a contract 

set up through Headquarters.—MJ Supt office” 

Please provide me with the entire contract that the superintendent’s 

office is referring to. Thank you. 

The request was assigned to records specialist Kailey Tschimperle and 

assigned number PRU-49186. Tschimperle found four food services contracts 

and provided them to McDaniels for $12.53. McDaniels responded that these 

were not the contracts he was looking for (because they were not related to food 

service inside Stafford Creek Corrections Center) and asked for a refund. 

Public disclosure specialist Dallas Wortham took over the request, 

provided a refund and sent McDaniels a letter informing him that DOC would now 

be interpreting his request to be “a copy of the contract between the Department 

of Corrections and Correctional Industries to provide food services at Stafford 

Creek Corrections Center.” McDaniels responded that this interpretation was not 

correct and that his request was for the contract the kiosk messages referred to. 

McDaniels also advised Wortham that a Correctional Industries employee had 

mentioned an “umbrella food contract,” which might be responsive to his request. 

Wortham contacted the Contracts and Legal Affairs Units of both DOC and 

Correctional Industries and was informed that neither had responsive documents. 

On March 20, 2018, Wortham informed McDaniels that an additional search had
No. 81828-7-I/5

5

yielded no responsive documents, that DES might have the contract he was 

seeking and that the request was closed. 

McDaniels responded that he had seen part of DES “umbrella food 

contract” No. 06006 because it had been provided to another prisoner and that 

he believed it was responsive to his request. He made several additional 

requests for intragovernmental communications regarding his prior requests. 

Wortham treated this correspondence as a new request, PRU-52132. PRU52132 remained open until September 11, 2018. 

McDaniels filed an amended complaint on July 11, 2018, alleging that 

DOC had not complied with the PRA because it failed to provide him with DES 

Contract No. 06006. A hearing was set to determine whether the DOC violated 

the PRA by withholding responsive documents to McDaniels’ requests. 

The superior court found that McDaniels only presented evidence with 

regard to PRU-46351 and PRU-49186, that those requests were vague and 

ambiguous, that DOC attempted in good faith to properly interpret and respond to 

these requests, and that McDaniels failed to present any evidence demonstrating 

that DOC silently withheld any records that were responsive to these requests. 

The superior court concluded that DOC did not violate the PRA and dismissed 

the action. 

McDaniels appeals. 

II

McDaniels contends that DOC failed to disclose DES contract No. 06006

in response to his requests, in violation of the PRA. To make this claim, he 
No. 81828-7-I/6

6

asserts that: (1) DES contract No. 06006 was responsive to his requests, and (2) 

that DOC was required to provide him with a contract administered by DES 

because DOC “uses” the contract. We disagree.

We review the superior court’s PRA decision de novo when the record 

consists only of documentary evidence. Janes Does 1-15 v. King County, 192 

Wn. App. 10, 20, 366 P.3d 936 (2015) (citing Nissen v. Pierce County, 183 

Wn.2d 863, 872, 357 P.3d 45 (2015)); Ockerman v. King County Dep’t of 

Developmental & Envtl. Servs., 102 Wn. App. 212, 216, 6 P.3d 1214 (2000).1

The PRA “is a strongly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public 

records.” Progressive Animal Welfare Soc’y v. Univ. of Wash., 114 Wn.2d 677, 

682, 790 P.2d 604 (1990). “Agencies are required to disclose any public record 

on request unless it falls within a specific, enumerated exemption.” Neigh. All. of 

Spokane County v. Spokane County, 172 Wn.2d 702, 715, 261 P.3d 119 (2011). 

However, the PRA does not require agencies to create or produce a record that 

does not exist. Fisher Broad.-Seattle TV LLC v. City of Seattle, 180 Wn.2d 515, 

522, 326 P.3d 688 (2014). 

Additionally, although the exact name of the record is not required, 

requests must be for identifiable records or classes of records. Fisher Broad.-

Seattle, 180 Wn.2d at 522. 

 1It has not been satisfactorily explained why the superior court’s factual findings are not 

accorded deference as they would be under other circumstances in which the superior court has 

made factual findings based on documentary evidence. See, e.g., Dolan v. King County, 172 

Wn.2d 299, 310, 258 P.3d 20 (2011). Nevertheless, we follow the applicable case law in this 

regard. However, after engaging in de novo review, we reach conclusions identical to those of 

the superior court.
No. 81828-7-I/7

7

McDaniels’ first request, PRU-46351, was for “any and all contracts and 

other agreements and other documentation that dictates what the [Stafford Creek 

Corrections Center] Kitchen must serve to inmates,” and his request specifically 

excluded policies and menus. As no contract or agreement dictates what the 

kitchen at Stafford Creek Corrections Center must serve, this was a request for a 

record that does not exist. Williams conducted an appropriate search and 

concluded that DOC did not have any responsive records. Despite McDaniels’ 

contention to the contrary, the evidence in the record suggests that DES contract 

No. 06006 does not control what the kitchen at Stafford Creek Corrections 

Center must serve to inmates and was, therefore, not responsive to this request. 

McDaniels’ second request, PRU-49186, was for the contract mentioned 

in a kiosk message from the Stafford Creek Corrections Center’s

superintendent’s office. Once again, this request was for a record that does not 

exist—the superintendent’s response to the kiosk message erroneously 

suggested that a contract controls Correctional Industries’ relationship to the 

Stafford Creek Corrections Center’s kitchen. The superintendent’s office was 

mistaken; there is no such contract. The DOC records specialists nonetheless 

again made reasonable efforts to properly interpret and respond to the request, 

clarifying the request and conducting multiple searches before suggesting that 

DES might have the record McDaniels sought.

2

 2 Even if McDaniels had clearly requested DES contract No. 06006, DOC would not be 

required to provide him with a record maintained by a different agency. McDaniels’ reliance on 

Cedar Grove Composting, Inc. v. City of Marysville, 188 Wn. App 695, 354 P.3d 249 (2015), is 

misplaced. Cedar Grove addresses a public record held by a private party, not a different agency 

that is also subject to public records act requirements. The evidence in the record does not 

suggest that DES contract No. 06006 was in DOC’s records. The PRA does not require “‘an 
No. 81828-7-I/8

8

McDaniels’ third request, PRU-52132, is not properly before this court. 

McDaniels did not submit evidence regarding PRU-52132 in the superior court 

and there is no evidence in the record concerning DOC’s treatment of PRU52132. We will not review a claim of error that was not raised in the superior 

court. RAP 2.5(a); Mitchell v. Dep’t of Corr.,164 Wn. App. 597, 601 n.4, 277 P.3d 

670 (2011). Furthermore, PRU-51232 was open at the time this action was filed. 

McDaniels was not entitled to initiate a lawsuit with regards to PRU-52132 until 

after DOC had engaged in some final action. See Hobbs v. State Auditor’s 

Office, 183 Wn. App. 925, 935-36, 335 P.3d 1004 (2014). 

Because the records McDaniels requested do not exist, DOC did not 

violate the PRA by failing to produce them. Thus, McDaniels’ claim fails. 

Affirmed.

WE CONCUR:

 agency to go outside its own records and resources to try to identify or locate the record 

requested.’” Koenig v. Pierce County, 151 Wn. App. 221, 232-33, 211 P.3d 423 (2009) (quoting 

Limstrom v. Ladenburg, 136 Wn.2d 595, 604 n.3, 963 P.2d 869 (1998)).