Background
After Stephen Dowdney Jr. lost his prison job in February 2024, the Washington Department of Corrections assigned him to “Assigned to Cell” status for “Failure to Program.” The designation required him to remain in his cell from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on weekdays until he received another program assignment.
DOC later disciplined Dowdney after he was found in the dayroom during those hours, imposing sanctions that included loss of good-conduct time. Dowdney filed a personal restraint petition seeking, among other relief, a declaration that treating confinement to a cell as programming was unlawful. DOC expunged the relevant infraction and sanctions, discontinued the practice, and argued that the dispute became moot. Dowdney was released from prison in July 2025.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that Dowdney’s challenge was moot as to him because he was no longer confined and the court could not provide him effective personal relief. It nevertheless reviewed the issue under the continuing-and-substantial-public-interest exception. The court reasoned that the treatment of incarcerated people was a public issue, an authoritative ruling would guide prison officials, and DOC had not shown that the challenged conduct was unlikely to recur.
On the merits, the court held that DOC unlawfully treated assignment to a cell as programming. Prison actions, including administration of work and educational programs, must be authorized by a valid statute, rule, or regulation, and the court found no such support for ATC as programming. It further explained that assigning a person to a cell as an administrative response to a serious infraction requires a disciplinary hearing. The court granted Dowdney’s petition and declared DOC’s practice unlawful.
Key Takeaways
- DOC may not designate confinement to a cell as an inmate’s work, education, or other programming assignment without support in governing law or policy.
- If assignment to a cell is imposed as administrative action for a serious infraction, DOC must provide the required disciplinary hearing.
- A moot prison-conditions dispute may still receive review when it presents a public issue requiring authoritative guidance and the challenged practice could recur.
Why It Matters
The published decision limits DOC’s ability to impose weekday cell confinement through a program-review label rather than the disciplinary process. It confirms that prison administrators must ground programming requirements and related restrictions in applicable statutes, rules, or policies.
The ruling also shows that voluntarily ending a challenged prison practice will not necessarily prevent appellate review, particularly when the agency has not acknowledged the practice’s unlawfulness or provided sufficient assurance that it will not return.