 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Larson v. Cooper5/27/2005
No. 5897
Before: Fabe, Chief Justice, Matthews, Eastaugh, Bryner, and Carpeneti, Justices.
I. INTRODUCTION
Loren J. Larson, Jr., a state prisoner, appeals the superior court's summary judgment order dismissing his constitutional tort claim against two Department of Corrections officials for depriving him of contact visits in retaliation for his exercise of free speech, religion, and due process. Because Larson failed to offer evidence raising an inference of retaliatory conduct and the prison's uncontroverted evidence indicates that the visitation restrictions were taken for legitimate reasons, we affirm the superior court's order.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Loren J. Larson, Jr., is an inmate at the maximum-security Spring Creek Correctional Center in Seward. On September 20, 1999, Larson and his wife held hands during a contact visit. Correctional Officer Larry Davis twice ordered Larson to release his wife's hand, and Larson twice replied, "I can't do that." As a result of the incident, Officer Davis filed a disciplinary report against Larson for refusing to obey a direct order of a staff member. In addition, acting Superintendent Thomas Reimer issued an administrative order (an "Individual Determination Restriction"), restricting Larson to secure (no-contact) visitation.
On October 4, 1999, Reimer conducted his monthly review of inmates' administrative restrictions and decided to continue Larson's contact-visitation restriction. That same day, Disciplinary Hearing Officer Harold Faust conducted a hearing and found Larson not guilty of disobeying a direct order. Faust's written finding did not explain the decision, and his reasons were not established during the proceedings below.
The following day, October 5, Larson sent Reimer a written request for reinstatement to contact-visit status, informing Reimer that he had been found not guilty on the disciplinary charge. Reimer responded on October 6, stating, "The Individual Determination Restriction is an administrative action as a direct result of you failing to follow the direction of the officer in the visiting room. Your situation will be reviewed every 30 days."
On October 19 Larson submitted a formal prisoner grievance, which detailed the circumstances surrounding his contact-visit restriction, emphasized that he had been found not guilty in the disciplinary proceeding, and asked to have his visiting privileges reinstated.
A week later, on October 26, Larson sent Reimer another written request concerning the status of his administrative restriction, asking whether Reimer had "return to me my Contact Visits on 10-20-99 'the 30 day Review'?" Reimer responded a day later, saying "The review has not been done yet." Larson immediately sent another memo, requesting "a detailed explanation as to why my 'individual determination' has not been reviewed yet." Reimer wrote back, "Because I have not reviewed them yet this month."
On October 31 Larson submitted a second prisoner grievance, accusing Reimer of retaliating against Larson for having filed his October 19 grievance:
On 10-19-99 I filed a Grievance for the wrongful termination of a contact visit between my family and my self.
My contact visits are now being held hostage by assistant superintendent T. Reimer in retaliation to my Grievance.
On November 1 Reimer conducted his next monthly review of administrative restrictions and left Larson's no-contact restriction intact. Larson sent Reimer another request on November 7, inquiring whether Reimer had restored Larson's contact visits on November 1. Reimer replied the next day,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alaska Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|