Bachmeier v. State, Dep't of Corr.
| Decision Date | 04 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | S-17824 |
| Parties | STEVE BACHMEIER, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee. |
| Court | Alaska Supreme Court |
UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)
Appeal from the Superior Court No. 3AN-20-04434 CI of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Andrew Peterson Judge.
Appearances:
Steve Bachmeier, pro se, Kenai, Appellant.
Andalyn Pace, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee.
Before: Winfree, Chief Justice, Maassen, Carney, Borghesan and Henderson, Justices.
A prisoner appealed disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Department of Corrections (DOC) to the superior court. The prisoner included with his appeal a copy of the prison superintendent's final decision of the prisoner's internal DOC appeal but not a copy of the underlying decision of the DOC disciplinary tribunal. The prisoner requested a partial exemption from a full filing fee and a waiver of the statutory requirement that filing fees be prepaid. The court eventually dismissed the prisoner's appeal on two alternative grounds: first, that he failed to include with his appeal a copy of the decision being appealed, as required by court rule; and second, that he failed to prepay his filing fee, as required by statute.
The prisoner appeals. We conclude that it was an abuse of discretion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the prisoner failed to submit a copy of the decision being appealed because he did in fact comply with that requirement. Further, we note that the prisoner's appeal may involve a punitive segregation sanction that would entitle him to relaxation of the filing fee requirements. We therefore reverse the order dismissing the appeal and remand for further proceedings.
Steve Bachmeier, while a prisoner at the Anchorage Correctional Complex (ACC), was involved in an incident for which he was sanctioned by a disciplinary tribunal.[1] The sanctions included a 60-day loss of commissary privileges and - apparently - 40 days of punitive segregation.[2] Bachmeier appealed the disciplinary tribunal's decision to the ACC superintendent, who denied the appeal.
Bachmeier then filed an appeal with the superior court in Juneau. With his appeal he submitted a copy of the superintendent's written denial of his appeal from the disciplinary tribunal's decision; he also requested that his appeal be accepted without prepayment of the filing fee and that he be exempted from the full filing fee under AS 09.19.010.[3] The court granted a partial filing fee exemption; it calculated that the filing fee required by the statute was $5.09.[4] But the court declined to waive prepayment, because the sanction it believed Bachmeier was appealing - loss of commissary privileges - was not serious enough to warrant a waiver under our decision in Barber v. State, Department of Corrections.[5]
DOC then moved to dismiss Bachmeier's appeal for "failure to include agency decision appealed." DOC argued that Bachmeier was required to provide a copy of the disciplinary tribunal's decision:
Pursuant toAlaskaRuleof AppellateProcedure602(c)(1)(D) a party appealing an agency decision must serve with their notice of appeal "a copy of the district court judgment or agency decision from which the appeal is taken." Bachmeier did not attach a copy of the disciplinary board's decision, and Rule of Appellate Procedure 602(c)(3) dictates that the clerk of the superior court "shall refuse to accept for filing any notice of appeal not conforming with the requirements of the rule."
The superior court conditionally granted DOC's motion to dismiss, allowing Bachmeier an extension of time to file "the agency decision he appeals from" if he wished to avoid dismissal.
Bachmeier filed a tardy opposition arguing that he had already provided the correct agency decision, again attaching a copy of the superintendent's decision denying his appeal. He also requested a recalculation of the filing fee, which he argued should be "less than a [dollar]." The superior court, in response, acknowledged that Bachmeier had filed the superintendent's decision multiple times but insisted that he "instead needs to file with the court the DOC Report of Disciplinary Decisions . . . which is the original written decision of the agency's disciplinary tribunal."
The case was then transferred from Juneau to Anchorage on DOC's motion for a change of venue. The Anchorage clerk of court mailed Bachmeier a notice requiring that the filing fee previously calculated - $5.09 - be paid within six weeks or "the case will be dismissed." Bachmeier responded with several motions, urging the court to "set correct filing fee amount, accept appeal without prepayment of minimum filing fee amount and use correct final agency [decision] for filing of brief." But the superior court ultimately denied Bachmeier's appeal:
Mr. Bachmeier still has not included a copy of the final agency decision in this case - the DOC Record of Disciplinary Decisions. Without that document, the court cannot examine the underlying decision before this court. [TheJuneau superior court] gave Mr. Bachmeier twochances to file the appropriate decision. Because Mr. Bachmeier has failed to do so, this appeal is DENIED.
A week later the court issued another order "to clarify the effect of the court's prior order." The court noted an alternative ground for dismissal of Bachmeier's appeal:
Bachmeier appeals the dismissal of his appeal.
"The interpretation of a statute is a question of law to which we apply our independent judgment, interpreting the statute according to reason, practicality, and common sense, considering the meaning of the statute's language, its legislative history, and its purpose."[6] "We review procedural dismissals for abuse of discretion."[7] "Under the abuse of discretion standard, the trial court's decision will only be overturned if this court has 'a definite and firm conviction that the judge made a mistake.' "[8] "[W]e review the trial court's factual findings for clear error and its legal determinations de novo."[9]
When a superior court is acting as an appellate court on an appeal from an agency decision, Alaska Appellate Rule 602(c)(1)(D) requires that "[a]t the time the notice of appeal is served and filed, it must be accompanied by ... a copy of the . .. agency decision from which the appeal is taken." Bachmeier challenges the superior court's determination that his appeal was deficient because he failed to include the DOC disciplinary tribunal's decision as the "agency decision from which the appeal is taken." Bachmeier argues that the superintendent's decision - the one he included more than once - is the agency decision contemplated by the statute.
Bachmeier is correct.[10] "[T]he determinative question in deciding whether [an agency] decision is reviewable is whether it ended the case at the agency level and thus constituted final agency action."[11] The DOC regulations provide: "A decision on appeal that has no further level of appeal under this section is a final decision and order of the department that may be appealed to the superior court in accordance with AS 33.30.295 and the Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure."[12] The disciplinary tribunal's decision was not "a final decision and order of the department" for purposes of judicial review; Bachmeier had no right to judicial review until he had exhausted his administrative appeal rights. This meant appealing to the superintendent.[13]
In short, the superintendent's decision, not the disciplinary tribunal's decision, is the "agency decision from which the appeal is taken" as described in Appellate Rule 602(c)(1)(D). Bachmeier included a copy of the correct decision with his appeal. Further preparation of the record - to include the underlying disciplinary tribunal's decision - was not Bachmeier's responsibility but DOC's[14] Itwas therefore an abuse of discretion to dismiss Bachmeier's appeal because of a failure to file "the agency decision from which the appeal is taken."
To appeal an agency decision to the superior court, a prisoner is required by AS 09.19.010(a) to prepay full filing fees unless the prisoner is entitled to a reduction. The filing fee will be reduced "if the court finds that exceptional circumstances prevent the prisoner from paying full filing fees."[15] The reduced fee is calculated as "20 percent of the larger of the average monthly deposits made to the prisoner's account... or the average balance in that account" over the six months preceding the request for a reduction.[16]
In Barber we explained that "[c]ases may potentially arise under [AS 09.19.010] in which prisoners are required to pay minimum fees that are completely beyond their reach."[17] We held that "[p]unitive segregation is a liberty deprivation sufficient to trigger the Alaska Constitution's due process guarantee "[1...
To continue reading
Request your trial