Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.24
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.430 (2025)

Actions by persons serving criminal sentence—Waiver of filing fees—Effect of previous claims dismissed on grounds claim was frivolous or malicious

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If a person serving a criminal sentence in a federal, state, local, or privately operated correctional facility seeks leave to proceed in state court without payment of filing fees in any civil action or appeal against the state, a state or local governmental agency or entity, or a state or local official, employee, or volunteer acting in such capacity, except an action that, if successful, would affect the duration of the person's confinement, the court shall deny the request for waiver of the court filing fees if the person has, on three or more occasions while incarcerated or detained in any such facility, brought an action or appeal that was dismissed by a state or federal court on grounds that it was frivolous or malicious. One of the three previous dismissals must have involved an action or appeal commenced after July 22, 2011. A court may permit the person to commence the action or appeal without payment of filing fees if the court determines the person is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
[ 2011 c 220 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case: Pers. Restraint Petition Of: David Allen Jr. Troupe, 423 P.3d 878 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pers. Restraint Petition Of: David Allen Jr. Troupe, 423 P.3d 878 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 59× “The clerk of this court determined that this statute applied to David A. Troupe’s May 15, 2017 personal restraint petition (PRP) and ruled that the PRP would be dismissed unless Troupe paid a $250 filing fee.”
Pers. Restraint Petition Of David Allen Troupe Jr., 378 P.3d 239 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 28× “Troupe responds that (1) the legislature cannot constitutionally limit the courts’ inherent authority to waive fees, (2) RCW 4.24.430 does not apply to PRPs, and (3) waiver of PRP filing fees is exclusively governed by RAP 16.”
Bartz v. Dep't of Corr. Pub. Disclosure Unit, 297 P.3d 737 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “He argues that the superior court erred in ruling that (1) the Department of Corrections (DOC) had complied with his public records requests, (2) his second complaint was unnecessary to obtain the information requested, (3) the PRA’s statute of limitations barred his second…”
Brian Matthews v. State Of Washington, No. 50835-4 (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2018). · cites it 5× “Matthews also challenges the trial court’s finding that this action was frivolous for purposes of RCW 4.24.430. Even presuming, but not deciding, that the articles of incorporation were a contract with the State, the provision Matthews seeks to enforce violates public policy.”
Jamie Wallin v. State Corr., No. 58968-1 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2025). · cites it 4× “bmitted PRA requests with the intent to harass the agency and make a profit from subsequent PRA litigation; (6) Wallin has not shown that the trial court was biased against him; (7) given our holdings affirming the default judgment and permanent injunction, Wallin’s challenges…”
Steven P. Kozol v. Washington State Dept. of Corr., No. 32596-2 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2016). · cites it 2× “In addition to dismissing the 21-claim action, the court found it to be "frivolous and malicious" within the meaning and purposes of RCW 4.24.430. Id. at 811. Mr. Kozol moved for reconsideration, which was denied.”
James Benjamin Barstad v. State of Washington, No. 35809-7 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2019). · cites it 2× “See RCW 4.24.430. “‘A lawsuit is frivolous [for purposes of RCW 4.”
Wright v. State of Washington, No. 2:20-cv-01452 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 23, 2022). · cites it 2× “8 As to the issue of frivolousness, the Court clarifies that its finding on Plaintiff’s federal 9 claims is for purposes of RCW 4.24.430—not the Prison Litigation Reform Act.”
In re Writ Of Mandamus Of Carl Alonzo Brooks v. State Of Washington, No. 76846-8 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2019). “RCW 4.24.430. 3 No. 76846-8-1/4 Brooks did not reference the trial court’s dismissal of his claims against DCC anywhere in his notice of appeal, nor did he attach any of the trial court’s orders to the notice of appeal.”
Wright v. State of Washington, No. 2:20-cv-01452 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 25, 2022). “(Id. at 3.) Such a finding would, 12 conclusively, bar Plaintiff from attaining filing fee waivers for future suits filed in Washington 13 Courts.”
Brooks v. Tenney, No. 2:23-cv-00219 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2023). “Code § 4.24.430). 1 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.