Personal Restraint Petition Of Corean Omarus Barnes

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of
COREAN OMARUS BARNES,
Petitioner.
No. 54322-2-II
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
In this personal restraint petition (PRP), Corean Barnes seeks relief from some of
the community custody conditions imposed by the Indeterminate Sentencing Review
Board (ISRB) when he was released to community custody in 2017. We hold that his
PRP is time-barred under RCW 4.16.130.
FACTS
On October 6, 2017, the ISRB released Barnes to community custody and
imposed certain conditions, including the following:
C. You must stay out of establishments, such as bars, taverns, casinos, and
cocktail lounges, where alcohol is the primary beverage served or where
you must be 21 years of age to enter.
. . . .
E. You must not enter Kitsap County without prior written approval of
your CCO [community corrections officer] and the ISRB.
. . . .
G. You are prohibited from having any contact with [KB]1 whether in
person, telephonically, through a third party, by mail or email, or any other
means of communication without prior written approval of the ISRB.
1 KB is Barnes’s daughter.
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
May 4, 2021

54322-2-II/2
2
Resp. to Pet., Ex. 1, Attach. G at 1.
Barnes appealed conditions E and G, and the ISRB denied the appeal on October
26, 2017.
Barnes filed this petition on January 29, 2020.
ANALYSIS
Barnes argues that the challenged conditions were not crime-related and should be
stricken. He also argues that conditions E and G constitute a banishment order and
interfere with his constitutional right to parent. However, Barnes did not file this petition
until more than two years after the conditions were imposed and upheld.
In In re Personal Restraint of Heck, the court held that the two-year “catch all”
statute of limitations stated in RCW 4.16.130 for civil cases applied to PRPs challenging
prison disciplinary decisions. 14 Wn. App. 2d 335, 340-41, 470 P.3d 539 (2020), review
denied, 196 Wn.2d 1047 (2021). The court noted that “the standard time bar statute for
collateral attacks on judgment, RCW 10.73.090, does not apply as a prison disciplinary
proceeding is not a judgment.” Id. at 340. The court concluded, “Since the petition is an
original action established by the Supreme Court, the petition is civil in nature, and no
other statute or court rule expressly addresses time limits on filing in this context, we find
that RCW 4.16.130 applies.” Id. at 340-41.
Like prison disciplinary decisions, ISRB decisions do not involve judgments and
therefore are not subject to RCW 10.73.090. And PRP challenges to ISRB decisions are
civil in nature. Heck, 14 Wn. App. 2d at 340-41. Therefore, as in Heck, we apply the
two-year statute of limitations in RCW 4.16.130 to Barnes’s PRP.

54322-2-II/3
3
Barnes did not file his PRP challenging the ISRB’s imposition of the community
custody conditions within two years. Therefore, RCW 4.16.130 bars his challenge.
CONCLUSION
We dismiss Barnes’s PRP as time-barred.
MAXA, P.J.
We concur:
CRUSER, J.
VELJACIC, J.