CRIMINAL LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2022)
Connor Sakati
In McDonald v. State, Department of Corrections, 519 P.3d 345 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court
held that an inmate’s request for a court order that the Parole Board reconsider denying
discretionary parole should be brought as an application for post–conviction relief, not a civil
lawsuit. (Id. at 345). However, the court also held that, instead of dismissing the inmate’s case, the
superior court should convert the lawsuit to the proper application form. (Id.). An inmate became
eligible for discretionary parole, but the Parole Board denied parole for what were, in the inmate’s
view, factors ungrounded in the law. (Id. at 347). After the Board denied parole reconsideration
and after the period for filing an application for post–conviction relief had expired, the inmate filed
a civil lawsuit. (Id.). The superior court dismissed the case, agreeing with the Department of
Corrections that, since the inmate argued he was “unlawfully held in custody,” he should have
filed an application for post–conviction relief; the inmate was not challenging his “treatment as a
prisoner” as he had alleged. (Id. at 348). On appeal to the supreme court, the inmate argued that a
state statute includes actions “related to a person’s status or treatment as a prisoner” within the
definition of correctional facility litigation, and that the Board’s incomplete consideration of his
case was similar to physical maltreatment of prisoners. (Id. at 348–49). The supreme court
disagreed that the Board’s decision was like physical mistreatment, which can be the basis for a
separate civil lawsuit. (Id. at 350). Instead, the court determined that a challenge to the Parole
Board’s decision must be brought under an application for postconviction relief; otherwise, an
inmate could utilize looser civil lawsuit rules to circumvent the more stringent post–conviction
relief rules. (Id. at 351). Therefore, the supreme court affirmed the superior court’s decision that
an inmate should bring a request to reconsider discretionary parole denial as a post–conviction
relief application, not a civil lawsuit. (Id. at 345). However, the court also held that, instead of
dismissing the inmate’s case, the superior court should convert the lawsuit to the proper application
form. (Id.).
