Plaintiff tells appellate court DOC allowed inmate to self-harm for hours; state urges affirmance of summary judgment

The Washington appellate court heard oral argument in Denton v. State of Washington, No. 613883, where plaintiff Michael Denton’s attorney, Daryl Parker, told the judges that Denton — a maximum-custody inmate in 2017 — was left in a Closed Observation Area cell without plumbing and allowed to self-harm for hours while staff mocked him. "They called him a retard. They told him to kill himself," Parker said, urging the court that a jury could find the conduct "extreme and outrageous."

Assistant Attorney General Kelly Fitzgerald, representing the respondents, told the court the superior court properly considered material facts against the legal elements and should be affirmed. "It is undisputed that Mr. Denton presents a unique placement situation," Fitzgerald said, adding that contemporaneous staff actions included graduated responses, mental-health consultations and post-incident follow-ups that did not show the sustained severe emotional harm required to defeat summary judgment. "He had a small scrape. He had a 1-inch bruise on his forehead," Fitzgerald said of the contemporaneous medical notes.

Why it matters: Denton appeals the superior court’s grant of summary judgment in a case alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence tied to an incident on Dec. 31, 2017. The outcome will affect what factual showing is sufficient at summary-judgment stage where claims involve custody decisions, mental-health crises and supervisory practices inside correctional facilities.

What counsel said: Parker described the COA cell as roughly "8 by 4," "about the size of a bathroom," with "no plumbing whatsoever in the cell," and argued that logs show staff first observed him at about 05:30 and then allowed self-harm through roughly 09:00. He pressed that log entries described blood "dripping," enough that Denton "could write on the floor" or "write on the wall," and that some supervisors instructed staff not to intervene unless there was "very, very serious damage" or "copious amounts of blood." Parker said those practices, taken with alleged mocking and encouragement to self-harm, could support either intentional or negligent liability.

The state's response: Fitzgerald acknowledged the seriousness of the facts alleged but argued the legal standard for outrage is high and requires specificity, causation and severity of emotional harm tied to the conduct. She told the court staff pursued multidisciplinary, measured responses and that mental-health evaluators recorded follow-up contacts on Jan. 2 and Jan. 4 showing Denton had returned to baseline and reduced suicide risk. Fitzgerald also noted that some record evidence described Denton as prone to malingering and disruptive behavior, which the state says is relevant to the required causation analysis.

The court's focus: Judges pressed both sides on two issues: whether the physical conditions of the cell (including lack of plumbing) independently support a claim and whether the reasonableness of staff response is a question for a jury. The presiding judge asked whether, given Denton's conduct, the reasonableness of DOC’s actions is properly left to a factfinder. Parker urged that the combination of confinement conditions, the duration of allowed self-harm and mocking constituted a pattern that a jury should evaluate; Fitzgerald urged the court to strip the record to material facts and apply legal standards to affirm summary judgment.

Procedural notes: Counsel reserved five minutes for rebuttal. Parker also argued the court erred in denying leave to amend the complaint after pandemic-related delays in discovery; the state countered that it identified prejudice and that defeat on elements would control the outcome. The court did not announce a ruling at the oral argument and moved on to other cases without further oral argument in open court.

What’s next: No decision was issued from the bench; the appellate panel will issue a written disposition at a later date. The court did not announce further briefing or set oral reargument.