BRIAN K. MALONEY, Appellant,
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent.
Keith Maloney appeals the superior court's denial of his
motion seeking costs under RCW 4.84.010 after his petition
for restoration of firearm rights was granted. We hold that
Maloney is not entitled to costs because RCW 4.84.010 applies
only to civil proceedings and Maloney's petition for
restoration of firearm rights arose from a criminal statute
and was an extension of his criminal proceeding. We also hold
that Maloney is not the prevailing party on appeal, so he is
not entitled to costs on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
and 1983, Maloney was convicted of second degree burglary and
attempting to elude police, respectively. As a result of his
criminal convictions, Maloney was prohibited from owning,
possessing, or controlling a firearm.
August 27, 2015, Maloney filed a petition to restore his
firearm rights under RCW 9.41.040(4). Based on filing
procedures required by the superior court for the convenience
of docketing, Maloney initiated a civil filing with the State
as the defendant, paid a $240 filing fee, and served the
petition on the Pierce County Prosecutor's Office. The
prosecutor's office appeared on the State's behalf.
The case was first assigned to a civil judge but later
transferred to the presiding criminal judge.
State agreed to the petition after it determined that Maloney
was eligible to have his firearm rights restored and prepared
an order for the superior court's signature. The superior
court signed the prepared order restoring Maloney's
then filed a motion for statutory costs and attorney fees
under RCW 4.84.010. The State opposed the motion.
superior court held a hearing and denied Maloney's
motion. The superior court concluded that:
1. The restoration process stated in RCW 9.41.040 arises from
the application of a criminal statute, and therefore the RCWs
and court rules that award costs to prevailing party in civil
cases do not apply.
2. The petitioner is not a "prevailing party, " as
contemplated by RCW 4.84.010 because the petition was
3. The Court's order restoring petitioner's firearm
rights is not a "judgment, " as contemplated by RCW
4. The Court, in its discretion, does not award costs against
the State. The Court finds that it would be unjust to apply
RCW 4.84 against the State.
5. The Court adopts all reasoning and rationale contained in
the State's ...