Page 383
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 384
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 385
Appeal
from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third
Judicial District, Palmer, Kari Kristiansen, Judge. Superior
Court No. 3PA-16-01708 CI
Keilan
Ebli, pro se, Wasilla, Appellant.
Mary B.
Pinkel, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and Jahna
Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee.
Before:
Bolger, Chief Justice, Stowers, Maassen, and Carney,
Justices. [Winfree, Justice, not participating.]
OPINION
MAASSEN,
Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
When
the Department of Corrections (DOC) discovered that one of
its contract employees, a substance abuse counselor, was in
an "intimate relationship" with a prisoner in
violation of prison policy, DOC barred the counselor and her
parents from visiting the prisoner or putting money in his
prison bank account. The prisoner sued DOC, alleging that
these restrictions violated his constitutional and statutory
rights to rehabilitation.
When
the prisoner moved for summary judgment, DOC moved to amend
its answer to deny the statutory claim it had failed to deny
in its original answer. The prisoner then moved to amend his
complaint to add a claim asserting the constitutional rights
of the counselor and her parents. The superior court granted
DOCs motion to amend, denied the prisoners motion to amend
as futile, and granted summary judgment in DOCs favor. The
prisoner appeals.
We
conclude that DOCs visitation restrictions are reasonable
exercises of its authority to address legitimate penological
interests and therefore do not violate the prisoners
constitutional or statutory rights to rehabilitation. We also
conclude that the superior court did not abuse its discretion
when it granted DOCs motion to amend its answer and denied
the prisoners motion to amend his complaint. For these
reasons we affirm the judgment of the superior court.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Facts
Keilan
Ebli is a prisoner at Goose Creek Correctional Center (Goose
Creek). There he met Kerri Pittman, a substance abuse
counselor employed by a private company but working as a DOC
contract employee. Ebli and Pittman developed what DOC later
concluded was an "intimate relationship." Ebli
characterizes the relationship as a "non-sexual"
"friendship," but DOC submitted affidavits on
summary judgment that painted a different picture. A DOC
employee attested to finding photo albums in Eblis cell that
included photos of Ebli and Pittman kissing and
"displaying wedding rings within a secure ...