Rathke v. Corrections Corporation Of America, Inc

153 P.3d 303 (2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is an inmate in a prison owned and operated by D, a private company. P had never failed a prison drug test. The tester, PharmChem reported that P tested positive for marijuana. It reached this result using a cutoff of twenty nanograms of THC metabolites (cannabinoids) per milliliter of urine (ng/ml), which is the standard in Arizona. However, the appropriate standard for Alaska inmates is 50 ng/ml. P was informed he was guilty and P immediately protested that in his seventeen years in prison, he had never failed a drug test. Without affording him a hearing, D officials sent P to administrative segregation because he was 'an immediate threat to the security of the facility.' P submitted a request for a drug retest. No retest was performed. P requested that a hearing advocate be appointed and met with the advocate in segregation. After twelve days in segregation, P appeared before a hearing officer. P's hearing advocate did not show up at the hearing, despite P's previous request. P was found guilty of illegal drug use and sentenced to thirty days in punitive segregation. P wanted an appeal and asked to have an independent laboratory retest the specimen. PharmChem, which had done the original test, would be doing the retest, and P would have to pay forty-five dollars for the retest, and that an appeal would result in sixty to ninety additional days in segregation while the matter was being reviewed. P spent thirty days in punitive segregation and lost his institutional job. P filed a grievance arguing that the wrong standard was used for his drug urinalysis and that he had been deprived of his right to notice and a hearing before punishment. A retest was done, and P passed the retest. It was ordered that all records of the discipline should be removed from P's file and destroyed. P never received a response to his grievance. P filed a complaint in Superior Court against D, several D employees and PharmChem. P argued a breach of contract in that inmates are intended third-party beneficiaries of D's contracts with the state and PharmChem. P claimed compensatory damages for lost wages incurred during his thirty days in segregation, and for the ninety-day 'work hold' job restriction that prevented him from an earlier rehire, and punitive damages. Ds moved to dismiss P's complaint for failure to state a claim arguing that P is not a third-party beneficiary. The court ruled for Ds and P appealed.