Court Opinion

ID: 9571765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:34:58.096942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:55.330847
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority’s holding that Hertz failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Cleary Agreement. Nevertheless, I cannot join in the majority’s affirmance of the superior court’s dismissal of Hertz’s administrative appeal. Considerations of fairness and concern for conservation of judicial resources lead me to conclude that Hertz’s pro se action seeking enforcement of the Cleary Agreement should have been transferred to the Cleary court for two purposes: (a) a determination whether leave should be granted to Hertz to proceed pro se; and (b) in the event such leave is granted, adjudication of the merits of Hertz’s challenges to the Department of Corrections’ actions for alleged non-compliance with the Cleary Agreement.