290 P.3d 403
Alaska2012Background
- In 1990 the Cleary Final Settlement Agreement set prison-rights for current and future Alaska inmates and established a court-supervised enforcement regime.
- DOC’s 1995 plan to move prisoners to a private Arizona facility was conditioned on compliance with the Cleary Settlement.
- In 2004 DOC contracted with Corrections Corporation of America to house Alaska inmates at Red Rock; contract covered wide-ranging operational aspects.
- Perotti, an Alaska inmate at Red Rock, alleged contract and DOC-policy violations during his administrative segregation and sought various damages.
- Superior Court granted summary judgment on exhaustion for most claims, and held Perotti had no recoverable damages as a third-party beneficiary and that AS 09.19.200 barred prospective relief; punitive damages were unavailable absent a tort.
- Perotti appeals arguing third-party-beneficiary status, exhaustion, and entitlement to damages under the Cleary Settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Perotti a third-party beneficiary entitled to damages? | Perotti argues Rathke makes him a third-party beneficiary. | Corrections Corp. contends Cleary does not authorize monetary damages for beneficiaries. | No monetary damages as third-party beneficiary; only contempt/enforcement, not damages. |
| Is Perotti entitled to liquidated damages under the contract? | As a third-party beneficiary, Perotti can enforce liquidated damages. | Cleary does not provide liquidated-damages remedies to beneficiaries. | Not entitled to liquidated damages; any benefit would flow from Cleary, not the contract. |
| Are punitive damages recoverable for alleged contract breaches? | Perotti seeks punitive damages for staff conduct during segregation. | Punitive damages require a tort; no cognizable tort alleged. | Punitive damages not available for breach of contract absent a tort. |
| Does AS 09.19.200 bar claims for prospective relief? | AS 09.19.200 does not bar the relief sought by Perotti. | AS 09.19.200 bars prospective injunctive relief for prisoners. | AS 09.19.200 bars prospective injunctive relief; rejection of relief on that basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rathke v. Corr. Corp. of Am., Inc., 153 P.3d 303 (Alaska 2007) (prisoners may be third-party beneficiaries to provisions incorporated from Cleary, but remedies limited to those intended by Cleary)
- Hertz v. State, Dept. of Corrections, 230 P.3d 663 (Alaska 2010) (modification/continuation of Cleary; gate money issue; damages not decided here)
- Howell v. Ketchikan Pulp Co., 943 P.2d 1205 (Alaska 1997) (indemnity/third-party-beneficiary intent; not to create direct enforcement rights for third parties)