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
) 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,
Appeal from the Superior Court of the
State of Alaska, Third Judicial District,
Mark C. Rowland,
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,
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
For the foregoing reasons the judgment is affirmed.