Pease-Madore v. State, Dept. of Corrections
414 P.3d 671
Alaska2018Background
- Matthew Pease‑Madore, an inmate, received guilty findings at three separate prison disciplinary hearings (Nov. 17, 19, and 20, 2014) for threats and disruptive conduct; penalties included punitive segregation and loss of good time.
- He initially appealed administratively pro se; after obtaining counsel he filed appeals in superior court challenging procedural due process.
- The superior court affirmed the disciplinary decisions, finding that the incident reports together with audio recordings of the hearings satisfied due process and that Pease‑Madore showed no prejudice.
- Pease‑Madore argued on appeal that (1) Alaska’s McGinnis verbatim‑record requirement is an added obligation distinct from Wolff’s written‑statement requirement; (2) the written disciplinary decisions were inadequate and could not be cured by incorporating incident reports or audio recordings; and (3) prejudice need not be shown where Wolff’s requirement is violated.
- The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed, holding that a verbatim audio record can satisfy Wolff’s written‑statement requirement, the incident reports and recordings together met due process, and Pease‑Madore showed no prejudice.
- The court admonished the Department of Corrections for failing to comply with its own regulation requiring more detailed written decisions going forward.
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McGinnis’ verbatim‑record requirement is additional to Wolff’s written‑statement requirement | McGinnis imposes an extra Alaska‑constitutional obligation; written statement still required separately | A verbatim record fulfills (and is more protective than) Wolff’s written‑statement purpose | A verbatim audio record satisfies Wolff; McGinnis’ recording requirement is not an additional separate obligation but can satisfy Wolff |
| Whether incident reports and terse written decisions may be supplemented by recordings or incorporated to meet Wolff | The tribunal may not simply "incorporate by reference" incident reports when the report writer was present; recordings cannot cure omission of written statement of evidence/reasons | Incident reports may be considered as evidence; where reports and recordings together show evidence relied on and reasons, due process is satisfied | Incident reports plus verbatim recordings satisfied the written‑statement requirement here; incorporation was permissible and Pease‑Madore had access to recordings for appeal |
| Whether prejudice must be shown to obtain relief for procedural defects | Wolff’s requirement is categorical and any violation requires reversal without a showing of prejudice | Under Alaska law an inmate must show both a constitutional violation and prejudice to obtain reversal | Court required prejudice showing; Pease‑Madore showed no prejudice, so decisions not reversed |
| Whether agency complied with its own regulation requiring written summaries | Agency failed to include required summaries of prisoner statement, witness testimony, evidence relied upon, and specific factual findings | N/A (court noted noncompliance but decided on constitutional/precedent grounds) | Court criticized Department’s failure to follow 22 AAC 05.475(a) and urged future compliance though affirmed decisions on other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974) (federal due process requires a written statement of evidence relied on and reasons for disciplinary action)
- McGinnis v. Stevens, 543 P.2d 1221 (Alaska 1975) (Alaska requires a verbatim record of disciplinary proceedings; recording can be more protective than a written summary)
- James v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 260 P.3d 1046 (Alaska 2011) (an inmate must show both a constitutional violation and prejudice to obtain reversal of a disciplinary decision)