In re Personal Restraint Petition of Jose Antonio Contreras (Majority and Concurrence)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JULY 28, 2022 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of: JOSE ANTONIO CONTRERAS, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) No. 38357-1-III UNPUBLISHED OPINION PENNELL, J. — Jose Antonio Contreras has filed a personal restraint petition, arguing he is subject to illegal restraint as the result of a prison disciplinary decision that resulted in the deprivation of good time credits. We deny his claim for relief and dismiss the petition. FACTS While serving a sentence at Airway Heights Corrections Center, Jose Contreras was issued an infraction for quitting his assigned job on a security crew. Mr. Contreras claimed he quit over concerns related to COVID-19 due to lack of social distancing on the job. A disciplinary hearing was held on May 11, 2021. On June 11, a Department of Corrections hearing officer found Mr. Contreras’s concerns to be unfounded and issued a guilty verdict, sanctioning Mr. Contreras with 15 days loss of good conduct time, No. 38357-1-III In re Pers. Restraint of Contreras 30 days loss of recreation privileges, 2 months loss of monthly packages, and no accrual of earned time for the month of April. Mr. Contreras appealed the disciplinary decision to the prison superintendent on June 11, filing a supplement to his appeal on June 14. The associate superintendent issued a decision on Mr. Contreras’s appeal on July 16, upholding the guilty finding. Mr. Contreras subsequently filed this timely personal restraint petition. ANALYSIS To obtain relief, a petitioner challenging a prison disciplinary sanction must show they have been subject to unlawful restraint. RAP 16.4(b)-(c). Restraint is unlawful if “[t]he conditions or manner of the restraint of petitioner are in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of the State of Washington.” RAP 16.4(c)(6). Improper deprivation of good time credits can support an inmate’s claim of unlawful restraint. In re Pers. Restraint of Reifschneider, 130 Wn. App. 498, 501, 123 P.3d 496 (2005). Mr. Contreras contends he is under unlawful restraint because the Department failed to abide by administrative regulations governing the time allowed to review and act on the appeal of a prison disciplinary decision. When an inmate appeals a guilty verdict for a serious violation, Department regulations provide that “[t]he superintendent 2 No. 38357-1-III In re Pers. Restraint of Contreras will review the hearing record and act on the appeal request within ten business days of receipt.” WAC 137-28-380(2). Yet the Department took over 30 days to act on Mr. Contreras’s appeal of the disciplinary decision. Mr. Contreras argues a “showing that a decision by a government agency failed to comply with the agency’s own rules or regulations is sufficient to show the unlawfulness of the restraint.” In re Pers. Restraint of Wilson, 17 Wn. App. 2d 72, 82, 484 P.3d 1 (2021) (citing In re Pers. Restraint of Cashaw, 123 Wn.2d 138, 149, 866 P.2d 8 (1994)). While we agree Mr. Contreras has shown a violation of DOC regulations, he is nevertheless not entitled to relief because he has not shown he has been restrained as a result of the violation. Mr. Contreras’s restraint was accomplished at the time of the disciplinary hearing decision. There is no allegation that any irregularities occurred at the time of the disciplinary hearing or that the hearing officer reached an incorrect result. The only violation alleged by Mr. Contreras occurred after he was under restraint, when the prison’s associate superintendent failed to take timely action on Mr. Contreras’s appeal. Mr. Contreras does not argue, and the record does not show, that the associate superintendent’s late action on the appeal affected the validity of the action itself or prejudiced Mr. Contreras in any way. Thus, Mr. Contreras has not met his burden of showing unlawful restraint as required by RAP 16.4. 3 No. 38357-1-III In re Pers. Restraint of Contreras CONCLUSION Mr. Contreras’s petition for relief from personal restraint is dismissed. 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. _________________________________ Pennell, J. WE CONCUR: ______________________________ Siddoway, C.J. Fearing, J. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
