Opinion ID: 4543969
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: The plaintiff class sued the State and OPD under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, ch. 7.24 RCW, alleging ongoing, systemic violations of the right to counsel taking place in Grays Harbor County Juvenile Court. The superior court certified a class composed of: “All indigent persons who have or will have juvenile offender cases pending in pretrial status in Grays Harbor County Juvenile Court since April 3, 2017, and who have the constitutional right to appointment of counsel.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 557-58. The plaintiffs’ complaint details several alleged cases of ineffective assistance of counsel, including severe failings on part of the public defender(s) Grays Harbor County contracted with to provide juvenile public defense services. “For example, a 15-year-old was kept incarcerated while serving a sentence for probation violations that was four times the length allowed by statute, and an 11-year-old child has spent two months in the Grays Harbor Juvenile Detention Center without a capacity hearing, also in violation of state law.” CP at 35. The plaintiffs contend that “[a]s a direct result of systemic and structural deficiencies known to [the State and OPD], juvenile public defense services in Grays Harbor County operate well below the constitutionally required minimum.” CP at 34. The plaintiffs allege that the State and OPD know Grays Harbor County’s system of juvenile public defense flouts -3- Davison et al. v. State of Washington et al., 96766-1 recognized standards of constitutionally adequate indigent public defense, yet these state actors have taken no steps to remediate the county’s failures. The complaint sets forth three causes of action. Count 1 alleges violations of the right to counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Count 2 alleges violations of the right to counsel under article I, sections 3 and 22 of the Washington Constitution. And count 3 alleges violations of state statutes—chapters 2.70 and 10.101 RCW—claiming these statutes authorize OPD to take action to remedy a county’s constitutionally deficient system of public defense. Among the relief requested, the plaintiffs ask for a declaration that the State is ultimately “responsible for ensuring that public defense systems in Washington State provide constitutionally adequate representation to indigent criminal defendants, including in Grays Harbor County’s juvenile public defense system.” CP at 59. The State moved for partial summary judgment on the pleadings. It asked the superior court to dismiss count 3, arguing the provision of indigent juvenile defense is a county-level function and OPD lacks the statutory authority to compel Grays Harbor County to remediate its system of indigent public defense. It also argued Grays Harbor County is a necessary and indispensable party, requiring mandatory joinder. -4- Davison et al. v. State of Washington et al., 96766-1 Given the plaintiffs’ theory of state liability, the court ruled mandatory joinder of Grays Harbor County was not required. Still, it dismissed count 3 of the complaint, determining, “There is nothing in that statutory scheme that gives the Office of Public Defense the authority to do what the plaintiffs have requested, even assuming, as the complaint has alleged, that the defense services in Grays Harbor County violated the constitution and that OPD was aware of that.” Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Nov. 3, 2017) at 19; CP at 389. The order did not address counts 1 or 2, so the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims remained pending. Near the close of discovery, the parties cross moved for summary judgment. The plaintiffs again argued the State has the ultimate responsibility to safeguard the right to counsel. They presented evidence, including six examples of ineffective assistance of counsel, the county’s admissions of its public defense system deficiencies, expert opinions concluding that the county’s juvenile public defense system is unconstitutional, and declarations that OPD knew of the defects in the county’s juvenile public defense system and failed to take oversight action. According to the plaintiffs, “[t]he Constitution places on the State the ultimate duty to remedy an unconstitutional public defense system that is known and obvious to State officials. This mandate both requires and empowers the State, through OPD or otherwise, to act and this Court should so hold as a matter of law.” CP at 155. -5- Davison et al. v. State of Washington et al., 96766-1 In response, the State argued the plaintiffs sued the wrong party—the State, rather than Grays Harbor County—and the State committed no constitutional violations. The State emphasized that the legislature has the plenary power to develop policy and determine the governmental functions that counties and cities must perform. And given that the legislature delegated the duty to enforce the right to counsel to local governments, the plaintiffs have no right to relief against the State, which does not provide indigent juvenile defense services. The State also argued the legislature has provided the necessary taxing authority for counties to fulfill their statutory obligations, so the State cannot be held liable for the county’s failures. It further claimed the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the State and failed to state a claim against OPD. Finally, the State asserted that without Grays Harbor County as a party in the case, the court cannot reach whether Grays Harbor County provides systemically deficient indigent juvenile defense services. The superior court denied the State’s motion for summary judgment and reserved ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion. The superior court opined in its oral ruling: It is clear that the state has delegated operational responsibility for juvenile defense to the counties, but the state cannot delegate its ultimate constitutional obligation. I am moved by the authorities from other jurisdictions that I believe are sufficiently similar to the facts at bar to believe that this kind of suit may proceed even in the absence of a “cannot” situation, which is what the state has articulated as the standard here. I believe that the standard that should apply in this type of case is a knowing systemic violation and that the type of relief that is⸺has been requested by the plaintiffs in this case would be appropriate if the facts bore it out. -6- Davison et al. v. State of Washington et al., 96766-1 VRP (Dec. 14, 2018) at 28. The superior court certified that its order involved a controlling question of law on which there is substantial ground for a difference of opinion, thus meriting discretionary review under RAP 2.3(b)(4). The State sought discretionary review, which we granted. The Washington State Association of Counties, the Juvenile Law Center and National Legal Aid and Defender Association, and the National Juvenile Defender Center filed amici briefs in support of the plaintiffs.