Wash. Rev. Code » Title 42 · Chapter 42.56
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.565 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A court shall not award penalties under RCW 42.56.550(4) to a person who was serving a criminal sentence in a state, local, or privately operated correctional facility on the date the request for public records was made, unless the court finds that the agency acted in bad faith in denying the person the opportunity to inspect or copy a public record.
(2) The inspection or copying of any nonexempt public record by persons serving criminal sentences in state, local, or privately operated correctional facilities may be enjoined pursuant to this section.
(a) The injunction may be requested by: (i) An agency or its representative; (ii) a person named in the record or his or her representative; or (iii) a person to whom the requests specifically pertains or his or her representative.
(b) The request must be filed in: (i) The superior court in which the movant resides; or (ii) the superior court in the county in which the record is maintained.
(c) In order to issue an injunction, the court must find that:
(i) The request was made to harass or intimidate the agency or its employees;
(ii) Fulfilling the request would likely threaten the security of correctional facilities;
(iii) Fulfilling the request would likely threaten the safety or security of staff, inmates, family members of staff, family members of other inmates, or any other person; or
(iv) Fulfilling the request may assist criminal activity.
(3) In deciding whether to enjoin a request under subsection (2) of this section, the court may consider all relevant factors including, but not limited to:
(a) Other requests by the requestor;
(b) The type of record or records sought;
(c) Statements offered by the requestor concerning the purpose for the request;
(d) Whether disclosure of the requested records would likely harm any person or vital government interest;
(e) Whether the request seeks a significant and burdensome number of documents;
(f) The impact of disclosure on correctional facility security and order, the safety or security of correctional facility staff, inmates, or others; and
(g) The deterrence of criminal activity.
(4) The motion proceeding described in this section shall be a summary proceeding based on affidavits or declarations, unless the court orders otherwise. Upon a showing by a preponderance of the evidence, the court may enjoin all or any part of a request or requests. Based on the evidence, the court may also enjoin, for a period of time the court deems reasonable, future requests by:
(a) The same requestor; or
(b) An entity owned or controlled in whole or in part by the same requestor.
(5) An agency shall not be liable for penalties under RCW 42.56.550(4) for any period during which an order under this section is in effect, including during an appeal of an order under this section, regardless of the outcome of the appeal.
[ 2011 c 300 s 1; 2009 c 10 s 1.]

Notes:

Application—2011 c 300: "This act applies to all actions brought under RCW 42.56.550 in which final judgment has not been entered as of July 22, 2011." [ 2011 c 300 s 2.]
Effective date—2009 c 10: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [March 20, 2009]." [ 2009 c 10 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case: King Cnty. Dep't of Adult & Juv. Det. v. Parmelee, 162 Wash. App. 337 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
King Cnty. Dep't of Adult & Juv. Det. v. Parmelee, 162 Wash. App. 337 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 29× “We hold that the trial court properly enjoined access to nonexempt public records pursuant to RCW 42.56.565 in the second injunction. Because the relief that Parmelee requests with respect to the first injunction is unavailable due to the issuance of the second injunction, we…”
Francis v. Dep't of Corr., 313 P.3d 457 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 13× “2 The Department cross appeals the trial court’s penalty award, arguing that the court erroneously interpreted the bad faith requirement of RCW 42.56.565 and that the court’s findings did not support its determination that the Department acted in bad faith.”
Faulkner v. Dep't of Corr., 332 P.3d 1136 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 12× “¶27 While Francis provides guidance in applying the bad faith standard in RCW 42.56.565, we take this opportunity to further clarify the standard.”
King Cty. Dept. of Adult Deten. v. Parmelee, 254 P.3d 927 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 30× “We hold that the trial court properly enjoined access to nonexempt public records pursuant to RCW 42.56.565 in the second injunction. Because the relief that Parmelee requests with respect to the first injunction is unavailable due to the issuance of the second injunction, we…”
Dep't of Corr. v. Jeffrey R. McKee, 199 Wash. App. 635 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 33× “¶1 In 2009, the legislature enacted RCW 42.56.565 to address abusive requests for public records by persons serving criminal sentences.”
DeLong v. Parmelee, 236 P.3d 936 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “, RCW 42.56.565 (effective March 20, 2009) ("the motion proceeding described in this section shall be a summary proceeding based on affidavits or declarations, unless the [superior court] orders otherwise").”
Burt v. Dep't of Corr., 168 Wash. 2d 828 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 3× “RCW 42.56.565 (effective Mar. 20, 2009). If Parmelee’s motivation for seeking public records is an intent to harass *838 penitentiary staff members, this case presents a model example of the types of public records requests that this new legislation will allow courts to enjoin.”
Burt v. Wash. State Dept. of Corr., 231 P.3d 191 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 3× “RCW 42.56.565 (effective Mar. 20, 2009). If Parmelee's motivation for seeking public records is an intent to harass penitentiary staff members, this case presents a model example of the types of public records requests that this new legislation will allow courts to enjoin.”
Franklin Cnty. Sheriff's Off. v. Parmelee, 285 P.3d 67 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 6× “It also held that RCW 42.56.565, enacted while review was pending, is retroactive.”
DeLong v. Parmelee, 157 Wash. App. 119 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “2009), codified at RCW 42.56.565, effective March 20, 2009, which specifically addresses access to nonexempt public records by prison inmates.”
James v. Adams v. Washington State Dept Of Corr., 361 P.3d 749 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “We hold that “bad faith” for purposes of imposing penalties under RCW 42.56.565(1) includes an agency’s failure to engage in any serious independent analysis of the exempt status of documents it withholds.”
Gronquist v. Dep't of Corr., 313 P.3d 416 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 13× “¶15 This broad interpretation of “final judgment” is consistent with several recent Washington cases addressing RCW 42.56.565. See Franklin County Sheriff’s Office v.”
Show all 43 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.565(1) — 26 cases
Francis v. Dep't of Corr., 313 P.3d 457 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “2 The Department cross appeals the trial court’s penalty award, arguing that the court erroneously interpreted the bad faith requirement of RCW 42.56.565 and that the court’s findings did not support its determination that the Department acted in bad faith.”
Faulkner v. Dep't of Corr., 332 P.3d 1136 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “¶27 While Francis provides guidance in applying the bad faith standard in RCW 42.56.565, we take this opportunity to further clarify the standard.”
James v. Adams v. Washington State Dept Of Corr., 361 P.3d 749 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “We hold that “bad faith” for purposes of imposing penalties under RCW 42.56.565(1) includes an agency’s failure to engage in any serious independent analysis of the exempt status of documents it withholds.”
Gronquist v. Dep't of Corr., 313 P.3d 416 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “¶15 This broad interpretation of “final judgment” is consistent with several recent Washington cases addressing RCW 42.56.565. See Franklin County Sheriff’s Office v.”
Randall Hoffman v. Kittitas Cnty., 422 P.3d 466 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.565(1)(c) — 3 cases
King Cnty. Dep't of Adult & Juv. Det. v. Parmelee, 162 Wash. App. 337 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “We hold that the trial court properly enjoined access to nonexempt public records pursuant to RCW 42.56.565 in the second injunction. Because the relief that Parmelee requests with respect to the first injunction is unavailable due to the issuance of the second injunction, we…”
Burt v. Wash. State Dept. of Corr., 231 P.3d 191 (Wash. 2010). “RCW 42.56.565 (effective Mar. 20, 2009). If Parmelee's motivation for seeking public records is an intent to harass penitentiary staff members, this case presents a model example of the types of public records requests that this new legislation will allow courts to enjoin.”
King Cty. Dept. of Adult Deten. v. Parmelee, 254 P.3d 927 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “We hold that the trial court properly enjoined access to nonexempt public records pursuant to RCW 42.56.565 in the second injunction. Because the relief that Parmelee requests with respect to the first injunction is unavailable due to the issuance of the second injunction, we…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.565(2) — 10 cases
Francis v. Dep't of Corr., 313 P.3d 457 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “2 The Department cross appeals the trial court’s penalty award, arguing that the court erroneously interpreted the bad faith requirement of RCW 42.56.565 and that the court’s findings did not support its determination that the Department acted in bad faith.”
King Cnty. Dep't of Adult & Juv. Det. v. Parmelee, 162 Wash. App. 337 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “We hold that the trial court properly enjoined access to nonexempt public records pursuant to RCW 42.56.565 in the second injunction. Because the relief that Parmelee requests with respect to the first injunction is unavailable due to the issuance of the second injunction, we…”
King Cty. Dept. of Adult Deten. v. Parmelee, 254 P.3d 927 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “We hold that the trial court properly enjoined access to nonexempt public records pursuant to RCW 42.56.565 in the second injunction. Because the relief that Parmelee requests with respect to the first injunction is unavailable due to the issuance of the second injunction, we…”
Dep't of Corr. v. Jeffrey R. McKee, 199 Wash. App. 635 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “¶1 In 2009, the legislature enacted RCW 42.56.565 to address abusive requests for public records by persons serving criminal sentences.”
DeLong v. Parmelee, 164 Wash. App. 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.565(2)(c) — 5 cases
Eric Burt v. Washington State Dep't of Corr., 361 P.3d 283 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Dep't of Corr. v. Jeffrey R. McKee, 199 Wash. App. 635 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “¶1 In 2009, the legislature enacted RCW 42.56.565 to address abusive requests for public records by persons serving criminal sentences.”
DeLong v. Parmelee, 164 Wash. App. 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
DeLONG v. Parmelee, 267 P.3d 410 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Jamie Wallin, V. Snohomish Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.565(2)(c)(i) — 4 cases
Dep't of Corr. v. Jeffrey R. McKee, 199 Wash. App. 635 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “¶1 In 2009, the legislature enacted RCW 42.56.565 to address abusive requests for public records by persons serving criminal sentences.”
Jamie Wallin v. State Corr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Mario Noyola v. Dep't of Corr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Jamie Wallin, V. Snohomish Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.565(3) — 7 cases
Burt v. Dep't of Corr., 168 Wash. 2d 828 (Wash. 2010). “RCW 42.56.565 (effective Mar. 20, 2009). If Parmelee’s motivation for seeking public records is an intent to harass *838 penitentiary staff members, this case presents a model example of the types of public records requests that this new legislation will allow courts to enjoin.”
Burt v. Wash. State Dept. of Corr., 231 P.3d 191 (Wash. 2010). “RCW 42.56.565 (effective Mar. 20, 2009). If Parmelee's motivation for seeking public records is an intent to harass penitentiary staff members, this case presents a model example of the types of public records requests that this new legislation will allow courts to enjoin.”
King Cnty. Dep't of Adult & Juv. Det. v. Parmelee, 162 Wash. App. 337 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “We hold that the trial court properly enjoined access to nonexempt public records pursuant to RCW 42.56.565 in the second injunction. Because the relief that Parmelee requests with respect to the first injunction is unavailable due to the issuance of the second injunction, we…”
Dep't of Corr. v. Jeffrey R. McKee, 199 Wash. App. 635 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “¶1 In 2009, the legislature enacted RCW 42.56.565 to address abusive requests for public records by persons serving criminal sentences.”
King Cty. Dept. of Adult Deten. v. Parmelee, 254 P.3d 927 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “We hold that the trial court properly enjoined access to nonexempt public records pursuant to RCW 42.56.565 in the second injunction. Because the relief that Parmelee requests with respect to the first injunction is unavailable due to the issuance of the second injunction, we…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.565(3)(a) — 1 case
Dep't of Corr. v. Jeffrey R. McKee, 199 Wash. App. 635 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “¶1 In 2009, the legislature enacted RCW 42.56.565 to address abusive requests for public records by persons serving criminal sentences.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.565(3)(c) — 1 case
Jamie Wallin v. State Corr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.565(4) — 6 cases
Eric Burt v. Washington State Dep't of Corr., 361 P.3d 283 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Dep't of Corr. v. Jeffrey R. McKee, 199 Wash. App. 635 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “¶1 In 2009, the legislature enacted RCW 42.56.565 to address abusive requests for public records by persons serving criminal sentences.”
DeLong v. Parmelee, 164 Wash. App. 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
DeLONG v. Parmelee, 267 P.3d 410 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Jamie Wallin v. State Corr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.565(4)(a) — 1 case
Jamie Wallin, V. Snohomish Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.565(5) — 3 cases
Dep't of Corr. v. Jeffrey R. McKee, 199 Wash. App. 635 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “¶1 In 2009, the legislature enacted RCW 42.56.565 to address abusive requests for public records by persons serving criminal sentences.”
DeLong v. Parmelee, 164 Wash. App. 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
DeLONG v. Parmelee, 267 P.3d 410 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.565(l)(c) — 2 cases
King Cnty. Dep't of Adult & Juv. Det. v. Parmelee, 162 Wash. App. 337 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “We hold that the trial court properly enjoined access to nonexempt public records pursuant to RCW 42.56.565 in the second injunction. Because the relief that Parmelee requests with respect to the first injunction is unavailable due to the issuance of the second injunction, we…”
Burt v. Dep't of Corr., 168 Wash. 2d 828 (Wash. 2010). “RCW 42.56.565 (effective Mar. 20, 2009). If Parmelee’s motivation for seeking public records is an intent to harass *838 penitentiary staff members, this case presents a model example of the types of public records requests that this new legislation will allow courts to enjoin.”
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.