David C. Nordlund v. State of Alaska, Department of Corrections

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision upholding a Department of Corrections disciplinary ruling against David C. Nordlund. The court held that Nordlund failed to show prejudice from the refusal to allow in-person witness testimony or from the omission of surveillance video from the appellate record. It also upheld the statutory “some evidence” standard of review for prison disciplinary decisions and concluded that the evidence supported the disciplinary ruling.

Holdings

1. Even assuming that the refusal to hear in-person testimony could implicate procedural due process, reversal requires both a constitutional violation and prejudice to the prisoner's right to a fair adjudication. Nordlund failed to show prejudice because he did not identify information that in-person testimony would have added beyond the written statements.
2. The omission of the surveillance video from the superior-court record did not violate Nordlund's procedural due process rights because he failed to demonstrate prejudice to his appeal.
3. The statutory "some evidence" standard in AS 33.30.295(b)(3) satisfies the Alaska Constitution, and the superior court properly applied that standard to Nordlund's DOC disciplinary appeal.
4. The disciplinary decision was supported by some evidence because it relied on incident reports from two officers who were present during the alleged misconduct, a third officer endorsed those reports, and the surveillance video did not obviously contradict them.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the hearing officer's refusal to hear Nordlund's witnesses in person violated procedural due process and prejudiced his right to a fair adjudication.
2. Whether DOC's failure to include the surveillance video in the record on appeal violated procedural due process and prejudiced Nordlund's appeal.
3. Whether AS 33.30.295(b)(3)'s statutory "some evidence" standard of judicial review for DOC disciplinary decisions violates due process or the Alaska Constitution.
4. Whether the evidence supported the disciplinary decision under the statutory "some evidence" standard.

Disposition

affirmed