Patrick H. Torrence v. State of Alaska, Department of Corrections

── Patrick H. Torrence v. State of Alaska, Department of Corrections ── Case No.: S19038 Court: Alaska Supreme Court Date: March 11, 2026 Category: General NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. A party wishing to cite such a decision in a brief or at oral argument should review Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d). THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA PATRICK H. TORRENCE, ) ) Supreme Court No. S-19038 Appellant, ) ) Superior Court No. 3PA-22-02331 CI v. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT ) AND JUDGMENT* OF CORRECTIONS, ) ) No. 2140 – March 11, 2026 Appellee. ) Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Palmer, Jonathan A. Woodman, Judge. Appearances: Patrick H. Torrence, pro se, Palmer, Appellant. Thomas C. Mooney-Myers, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage and Treg Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee. Before: Borghesan, Henderson, Pate, and Oravec, Justices. [Carney, Chief Justice not participating] INTRODUCTION An inmate was issued an infraction for failing to comply with a correctional officer’s direct orders after the inmate first refused to turn over his TV and then refused to provide his offender identification number. The inmate was found guilty of violating direct orders at a subsequent disciplinary hearing. He received sanctions * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. of 30 days of punitive segregation (with 15 of those days suspended) along with 30 days’ loss of access to the prison commissary. The inmate appealed the guilty finding and punishment, first to the prison superintendent and then to the superior court. The disciplinary hearing officer’s decision was affirmed at each level. The inmate now appeals to this court, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the guilty finding. He also argues the hearing officer improperly excluded evidence regarding his employment history, which constituted a violation of his due process rights. Finally, he contends that his constitutional rights under the equal protection clauses of the Alaska and United States Constitution, and under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution were violated. Because the disciplinary hearing officer’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence, evidence was not improperly excluded, and the inmate’s constitutional claims are without merit, we affirm the superior court’s decision. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS A. Facts In November 2022, Patrick Torrence was an inmate at Goose Creek Correctional Center (GCCC), where he was issued an infraction for failing to comply with a correctional officer’s direct orders.1 On the day of the incident, correctional officer Cunningham was patrolling a housing unit tasked with confiscating televisions from inmates who had not paid the required charges. Cunningham asked Torrence to turn over his TV because he did not have enough funds to pay the charge. Torrence responded that he had funds in his account for the TV and Cunningham reported that Torrence argued against the removal of the TV despite several requests to relinquish it. Cunningham eventually seized the TV. When he asked Torrence for his offender 1 22 AAC 05.400(c)(19) (defining “[h]igh-moderate” infraction to include an inmate’s refusal to obey a staff member’s direct order). -2- 2140 identification number, Torrence did not provide it. Torrence was then escorted to segregation. B. Proceedings Torrence attended a disciplinary hearing. There, the hearing officer read the incident report; Torrence ple