462 P.3d 1
Alaska2020Background
- Appellants Junior Antenor, Keilan Ebli, and Loren J. Larson Jr. are inmates at Goose Creek Correctional Center who exhausted DOC administrative remedies and filed motions to enforce the Cleary Final Settlement Agreement (the 1990 consent decree).
- Larson and Ebli challenged DOC’s telephone system after Securus (the contractor) began charging $1 for local collect calls following RCA approval in 2015; the Cleary Agreement had provided for no charge for local calls unless revenue shortfalls justified up to $0.50 per call and judicial process to change that.
- Antenor sought to receive a purchased computer‑programming book (Programming Arduino Next Steps); Goose Creek staff refused delivery, stating programming books were disallowed for security reasons under DOC publication review policy.
- The Alaska Prison Litigation Reform Act (APLRA) restricts courts’ ability to order prospective relief under the Cleary consent decree unless a state or federal right is proven and administrative remedies were exhausted.
- The superior court denied inmates’ motions to enforce; on appeal the Alaska Supreme Court assessed statutory and constitutional claims about telephone access and free speech/rehabilitation for publications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC’s allowance of Securus’ higher local‑call rates breached Cleary/violated AS 33.30.231 or inmates’ constitutional right to rehabilitation/free speech | Larson/Ebli: DOC breached Cleary by not using the settlement’s modification procedure and by permitting $1 calls; high rates unreasonably deny “reasonable access” and impair rehabilitation/communication | DOC: AS 33.30.231 guarantees reasonable access but not free calls; Cleary allowed modification; APLRA limits prospective relief; RCA approved rates; record lacks proof of unreasonableness | Reversed and remanded: record insufficient to decide statutory/constitutional claims; superior court must develop factual findings (Alaska’s geography/economy and indigency issues to be considered) |
| Whether call recipients (families) are entitled to restitution as intended third‑party beneficiaries of Cleary | Larson/Ebli: recipients paid unlawful charges and are intended beneficiaries entitled to restitution | DOC: restitution not an appropriate remedy here; APLRA limits remedies; families are not parties to the Cleary enforcement motion | Waived: appellate briefing on restitution was cursory; court declined to decide substantively |
| Whether DOC’s rejection of Antenor’s computer‑programming book violated Alaska free speech or right to reformation | Antenor: an unwritten blanket ban on programming books is a content‑based restriction that violates article I, §5 and impairs rehabilitation (art. I, §12) | DOC: restriction is security‑based, reasonably related to penological interests; Turner deference appropriate; inmates have alternative educational access (classes, library) | Affirmed: applying Turner factors, denial was rationally related to legitimate penological interests and did not violate right to rehabilitation |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Cleary, 24 P.3d 1245 (Alaska 2001) (scope and enforcement of Cleary consent decree and law‑of‑the‑case treatment)
- Barber v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 393 P.3d 412 (Alaska 2017) (application of Cleary enforcement and APLRA constraints)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (reasonableness test for prison regulations impinging constitutional rights)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (deference to prison administrators on security and operational matters)
- Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) (standards for censorship of prisoner publications)
- Walton v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 921 N.E.2d 145 (N.Y. 2009) (upholding prison telephone rates as just and reasonable)
- Benson v. State, 887 A.2d 525 (Md. 2005) (challenge to commissions/fees on inmate collect calls)
- Hertz v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 230 P.3d 663 (Alaska 2010) (APLRA and limits on prospective relief)