Barber v. State, Department of Corrections, 314 P.3d 58

Background

James E. Barber, an indigent prisoner, appealed two DOC disciplinary findings ordering punitive segregation; both superior-court appeals were dismissed after he failed to pay reduced filing fees set under AS 09.19.010.
Barber submitted financial affidavits and offender trust account (OTA) statements showing depleted balances, child-support garnishments, and little or no discretionary funds; DOC did not contest those facts in the superior court.
Under AS 09.19.010 the statutory minimum reduced fee for prisoners is 20% of the larger of (a) average monthly deposits or (b) average balance in the prisoner’s account over the prior six months; fee due within 30 days, and untimely payment bars acceptance of filings.
Superior court twice set reduced fees of $33.86; Barber could not pay and the appeals were dismissed; Barber sought review in the Alaska Supreme Court arguing the statute, as applied, denied him court access.
The Supreme Court accepted Barber’s financial showing, concluded his liberty interest (punitive segregation) implicated fundamental due process concerns, and found the statute as applied denied him meaningful access to court.
Remedy: the Supreme Court reversed the dismissals and remanded for recalculation of fees and permitted accommodations (e.g., placing a hold on OTA) so litigation may proceed when payment is infeasible in reasonable time.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AS 09.19.010, as applied, denied Barber meaningful access to courts and violated due process	Barber: the six‑month average calculation produced mandatory fees beyond his present means, effectively barring appellate review of disciplinary actions implicating liberty	DOC: courts can avoid denial by granting extensions, installments, ordering prison employment, accessing forced savings or PFDs, or excluding nondiscretionary deductions from the calculation	Held: As applied to Barber, the statute denied procedural due process and access to courts; reversal and remand required
Whether accommodations (extensions/installments/employment/forced savings/PFD) cure constitutional problem	Barber: accommodations are insufficient where prisoner has no reasonably foreseeable means to pay	DOC: accommodations and stays can prevent unconstitutional deprivation; courts should use them before finding statute unconstitutional	Held: Extensions/installments may help but are inadequate for prisoners with no foreseeable income; accommodations cannot cure the constitutional violation in Barber’s circumstances
Whether courts should exclude nondiscretionary OTA deductions (e.g., child support) when calculating the 20% minimum	Barber/Amicus: excluding nondiscretionary garnishments is necessary to avoid unconstitutional barriers	DOC: courts should ignore non‑discretionary deductions when calculating fees (extend Baker reasoning)	Held: Court declines to rewrite statute to exempt nondiscretionary deductions; Baker’s narrow rule about forced savings does not extend to statutory garnishments enacted in same legislative act
Whether Alaska courts retain inherent/common‑law authority to waive mandatory prisoner filing fees	Amicus: if no inherent waiver power exists, statute is unconstitutional as applied	DOC: courts possess inherent authority to waive fees in emergencies	Held: AS 09.19.010’s mandatory language precludes a broad common‑law waiver of prisoner fees; courts must instead use permitted accommodations and remedies on remand to avoid unconstitutional application

Key Cases Cited

Cutler v. Kodiak Island Borough, 290 P.3d 415 (Alaska 2012) (statutory interpretation standard)
Sands ex rel. Sands v. Green, 156 P.3d 1130 (Alaska 2007) (constitutional-review standard cited)
Brandon v. Corrections Corporation of America, 28 P.3d 269 (Alaska 2001) (upholding AS 09.19.010 against facial equal‑protection challenge and recognizing legitimate state interest in limiting frivolous prisoner litigation)
Mathis v. Sauser, 942 P.2d 1117 (Alaska 1997) (prisoner right of access analysis; sliding‑scale scrutiny)
Varilek v. City of Houston, 104 P.3d 849 (Alaska 2004) (procedural due process balancing framework)
McGinnis v. Stevens, 543 P.2d 1221 (Alaska 1975) (limits of procedural rights in DOC disciplinary hearings; duty to inquire when constitutional rights alleged)
Baker v. State, 158 P.3d 836 (Alaska App. 2007) (construing “prisoner’s account” to exclude forced‑savings for fee calculation)
McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1992) (on prisoners’ remaining fundamental political/participatory rights and access to courts)
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1996) (complexity of access‑to‑appeal constitutional claims)