Hertz v. Dept. of Corrections (1/17/92), 823 P 2d 1247

Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available by Touch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions

Touch N' GoŽ, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother. Visit Touch N' Go's Website.

This site is possible because of the following site sponsors. Please support them with your business.

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices.

Hertz v. Dept. of Corrections (1/17/92), 823 P 2d 1247

Notice: This is subject to formal correction before publication in the Pacific Reporter. Readers are requested to bring typographical or other formal errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, in order that corrections may be made prior to permanent publication. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA SIDNEY R. HERTZ, Individually and ) on behalf of all others similarly ) Supreme Court No. S-4250 situated, ) ) Appellant, ) ) Trial Court No. v. ) 3AN-88-8621 Civil ) CHARLES MOSES, Individually and in ) his capacity as Regional Director; ) O P I N I O N RICHARD C. SHOEFFEL, Individually ) and in his capacity as Superin- ) tendent; MICHAEL O'SHEA, Indivi- ) dually and in his capacity as ) Chairperson, Disciplinary Commit- ) tee, Spring Creek Correctional ) Center, Department of Corrections ) for the STATE OF ALASKA, ) ) Appellees. ) [No. 3796 - January 17, 1992] ___________________________________) Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Mark C. Rowland, Judge. Appearances: Sidney R. Hertz, pro se, Seward. John K. Bodick, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, Charles E. Cole, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellees. Before: Rabinowitz, Chief Justice, Burke, Matthews, Compton, and Moore, Justices. PER CURIAM The failure to denote the incident report as either disciplinary or informational did not violate appellant's due process rights as he had adequate notice of the disciplinary hearing. Similarly, the failure to call Mr. Easter to testify as to why the incident report was not so denoted was not a due process violation because Easter's testimony on this point was irrelevant to any substantive issue. The failure of the appellees to record the deliberations of the prisoner disciplinary committee is not a violation of due process. The other points raised by Hertz are unreviewable as they do not allege an abridgement of fundamental constitutional rights. Department of Corrections v. Kraus, 759 P.2d 539, 540 (Alaska 1988). For the foregoing reasons the judgment is affirmed.