barber v. schmidt, alaska (2015)

7/25/2019 Barber v. Schmidt, Alaska (2015)

1/10

Notice: Th is opinion is sub ject to correc tion before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER.

Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appel late Courts,

303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email

[email protected].

THESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFALASKA

JAMESBARBER,

Appellant,

v.

JOSEPHSCHMIDT,BRYAN

BRANDENBURG,SAMEDWARDS,CARMEN

GUTIERREZ,JACKL.EARL,JR.

MICHAELALEXANDER,

ANTHONYGARCIA,SAM

WILLIAMS,andTOMMY

PATTERSON,

Appellees.

____________________________

JACKL.EARL,JR.,

Appellant,

v.

JOSEPHSCHMIDT,BRYAN

BRANDENBURG,SAM

EDWARDS,CARMENGUTIERREZ,MICHAEL

ALEXANDER,ANTHONY

GARCIA,SAMWILLIAMS,

TOMMYPATTERSON,and

,

__

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

))

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

SupremeCourtNos.S-15141/15152

(Consolidated)

SuperiorCourtNo.3AN-12-07764CI

OPINION

No.7026July31,2015

_)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

))

)

)

)
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/10

JAMESBARBER,1

Appellees.

)

)

)

_______________________________)

AppealfromtheSuperiorCourtoftheStateofAlaska,ThirdJudicialDistrict,Anchorage,JohnSuddock,Judge.

Appearances:JamesBarber,prose,Wasilla,Appellant.Jack

L.Earl, Jr.,pro se, Juneau, Appellant. John K. Bodick,

Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and Michael C.

Geraghty,AttorneyGeneral,Juneau,forAppelleesJoseph

Schmidt,BryanBrandenburg,SamEdwards,andCarmen

Gutierrez.

Before:Fabe,ChiefJustice,Winfree,Stowers,Maassen,and

Bolger,Justices.

STOWERS,Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

SixAlaskaprisonersjointlyfiledaproseputativeclass-actioncomplaint

againstvariousDepartmentofCorrectionsofficials.Theircomplaintdetailed18causes

of action, many of which address changes in Department policy regarding inmate

purchase and possession of gaming systems and restrictions on mature-rated video

games.

1 WenotethatintheBarber appeal,appellees Earl, Alexander,Garcia,

Williams,andPattersonwerelistedasplaintiffsintheunderlyingsuperiorcourtcase.IntheEarl appeal,Alexander,Garcia,Williams,Patterson,andBarberwerelikewise

listedasplaintiffs.TheyarelistedasappelleesherepursuanttoAlaskaAppellateRule

204(g)buthavenotparticipated.WehaveomittedJohnDoeandJaneDoeparties

namedasdefendantsinthesuperiorcourtbecausetheywerenotnamedanddidnothave

anyroleintheproceedings.

-2- 7026


3/10

Oneoftheprisonersmovedforclasscertificationandforappointmentof

counsel. Thesuperiorcourtdeniedtheclassactionmotiononthegroundsthatprose

plaintiffscannotrepresentaclass,anddeniedtheappointmentofcounselmotionaswell.

TheDepartmentmovedfordismissaloftheprisonerscomplaintforfailingtostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcouldbegranted. Thesuperiorcourtgrantedthismotiononthe

groundthatalloftheclaimswereclassactionclaimsthatcouldnotbepursued.

Twooftheplaintiffs,JackL.Earl,Jr.andJamesBarber,eachfiledan

appeal. They argue that the superior court erred in denying the motion for class

certification, denying the motion for appointment of counsel, and dismissing the

complaintforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.Weconsolidated

theappeals.Weaffirmthesuperiorcourtsdenialsofclasscertificationandappointment

ofcounsel,butwereversethedismissaloftheactionandremandforfurtherproceedings.

II. FACTSANDPROCEEDINGS

In May 2012 Alaska prisoners Jack L. Earl, Jr., Michael Alexander,

AnthonyGarcia,SamWilliams,TommyPatterson,andJamesBarber,allsigningonthe

samecomplaint,collectivelyfiledaputativeclass-actioncomplaintagainstDepartment

ofCorrectionsCommissionerJosephSchmidtandotherDepartmentofficials.2 The

complaintdetailed18causesofaction,allegingviolationsoftheirrightsunderboththe

Alaska and United States Constitutions. Many of the alleged violations pertain to

changesinDepartmentpolicyregardinginmatepurchaseandpossessionofgaming

systems(e.g.,XboxandPlayStation), aswell as restrictions onmature-ratedvideo

games.Theprisonersrepresentedthemselves.

EarlmovedforclasscertificationunderAlaskaRuleofCivilProcedure

23(a).Healsomovedforcourt-appointedcounselandatemporaryrestrainingorder.

Cf. AlaskaR.Civ.P.20(a)(allowingmultipleplaintiffstobringjointor

severalclaimsbasedonsametransaction).

-3- 7026

2


4/10

TheDepartmentfiledanoppositiontothemotionforclasscertificationonthegrounds

thatproseplaintiffscannotrepresentaclassinaclass-actionlawsuitandbecauseallof

theclaimswereclass-actionclaims;inthesameone-pagefilingitcross-movedfor

dismissalofthecomplaintonthegroundsthat,absentacertifiableclass,itfailedtostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcouldbegranted.BarberandEarleachrespondedtothe

Departmentsoppositiontoclasscertification,arguingthatitwasprematurepending

resolutionoftheappointmentofcounselmotion.

The superior court denied Earls motion for class certification on the

groundsthataproseplaintiffcannotrepresentaclassinaclass-actionlawsuit. The

court also ruled that there was no provision in [Alaska] statutes or the Alaska

AdministrativeCodeforappointmentofcounseltoinmatesforprisonrightslitigation.

Finally,thecourtconcludedthatsincetheclasscouldnotbecertifiedandsincethere

werenoclaimsthatwerenotclass-actionclaims,theplaintiffshadfailedtostateaclaim

uponwhichreliefcouldbegranted.Itthereforedismissedthecomplaint.Earland

Barbereachfiledappeals,whichweconsolidated.

III. STANDARDOFREVIEW

Wereviewthedenialofclasscertificationforabuseofdiscretion,3the

3 Bartek v. State, Dept of Natural Res., Div. of Forestry,31P.3d100,101

(Alaska2001)(citingState, Dept of Revenue v. Andrade,23P.3d58,65(Alaska2001)),

superseded by statute as stated in Brewer v. State,341P.3d1107,1119n.79(Alaska

2014).

-4- 7026


5/10

denialofamotiontoappointcounselforabuseofdiscretion, 4andthedismissalofa

complaintforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranteddenovo. 5

IV. DISCUSSION

A. TheSuperiorCourtDidNotAbuseItsDiscretionByDenyingThePrisonersMotionForClassCertification.

AlaskaRuleofCivilProcedure23(a)states:

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as

representativepartiesonbehalfofallonlyif(1)theclassis

sonumerousthatjoinderofallmembersisimpracticable,

(2)therearequestionsoflaworfactcommontotheclass,

(3)theclaimsor defensesoftherepresentativepartiesare

typical of the claimsor defenses oftheclass, and (4) the

representativepartieswillfairlyandadequatelyprotecttheinterestsoftheclass.

TheissueinthiscaseinvolvesthefourthprongofRule23(a),specifically

whetheraproseplaintiffcanfairlyandadequatelyprotecttheinterestsoftheclass. 6

InHertz v. Cleary,weheldthataproseplaintiff...maynotproperlyrepresenta

class.7Inexplainingwhy,wepointedfavorablytoafederalcase,Shaffery v. Winters,8

4 Midgett v. Cook Inlet Pre-Trial Facility,53P.3d1105,1109(Alaska2002)

(citingBalough v. Fairbanks N. Star Bor.,995P.2d245,254(Alaska2000))(The

decisiontoappointcounselforacivillitigantisaproceduraldecision,whichwereview

forabuseofdiscretion.).

5 Caudle v. Mendel,994P.2d372,374(Alaska1999).

6 TheDepartment,initsoppositiontoclasscertification,didnotchallenge

theotherthreeprongs.

7 835P.2d438,442n.3(Alaska1992). Wealsoappliedthis ruleinan

unpublishedcase.Latham v. Alaska Pub. Defender Agency,Mem.Op.&J.No.1254,

2006WL1667661,at*4(AlaskaJune14,2006).

8 72F.R.D.191,193(S.D.N.Y.1976).

-5- 7026


6/10

andnotedidenticallanguageinfederalandAlaskaclass-actionrules.9 Shaffery involved

anattemptbyaproselitiganttorepresentaclassofprisonersinaclassactionagainst

NewYorksDepartmentofCorrectionalServices.10 TheShaffery courtexplainedthat

[o]neofthemoreimportantconsiderationsinthisregardgoestothequalificationsandexpertise of plaintiffs counsel.11 The court commended the litigation efforts of

Shaffery,butneverthelessconcludedthatitwouldbeimpropertopermit...aprose

litigantwhoisnotanattorneyandwholaborsundertherestrictionsofincarceration,to

litigateasaclassactionaquestionassignificantasthatraisedbythecomplaint. 12

Earl concedes that, given our decision inHertz, the fourth prong of

CivilRule23(a)cannotbesatisfiedwithouttheappointmentofcounsel.Hepreviously

acknowledgedthisinhismotionforclasscertification,notingthatnoneofthelead

plaintiffs would be allowed or indeed fully capable (although meaning well) to

adequatelyprotecttheinterestsoftheentireclassmembership...especiallyinlightof

Hertz v. Cleary.Barberalsodoesnotchallengethesuperiorcourtsinterpretationor

applicationofHertz. So,whilethisissueisraisedon appeal,allpartiesagreethata

proselitigantcannotrepresentaclassgivencurrentprecedent.Whethercounselshould

thereforehavebeenappointedisaseparateissuealtogether,butaclasssimplycannotbe

certifiedwithproseplaintiffsatthehelm.Thesuperiorcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretion

indenyingthemotionforclasscertification.

9 Hertz, 835 P.2d at 442 n.3; compare Fed R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4), with

AlaskaR.Civ.P.23(a)(4).

10 Shaffery,72F.R.D.at192.

11 Id.at193.

12 Id.ShafferyattemptedtochallengetheDepartmentofCo rrectionsrefusal

toimplementapolicythatwouldallowforprisonersindifferentstatestosharelegal

resources.Id.at192.

-6- 7026


7/10

B. TheSuperiorCourtDidNotAbuseItsDiscretionByDenyingThe

PrisonersMotionToAppointCounsel.

Wehaveheldthatanindigentpersondoesnothavearighttoappointed

counselinmostcivilcases. 13However,wehaveallowed theappointmentofcounsel

incertaincivilcasesorquasi-civilproceedingsbyrelyingontheprinciplesthatjustify

appointmentofcounselincriminalproceedings.14Wehaverequired theappointment

ofcounselincasesthatinvolveterminationofparentalrights,childcustody,paternity

suits,andcivilcontemptproceedingsfornonpaymentofchildsupport. 15

InMidgett v. Cook Inlet Pre-Trial Facility, we noted that the pro se

plaintiffsdidnotfallintooneofthealreadyrecognizedexceptionsforappointmentof

counselinacivilproceeding. 16However,ratherthanendingouranalysisthere,we

consideredwhethertheplaintiffsdueprocessrightsmighthavebeenviolatedunderthe

17 18Mathews v. Eldridge balancingtest. Thistestprovides:

that identification of the specific dictates of due process

generally requires consideration of three distinct factors:

[f]irst,theprivateinterestthatwillbeaffectedbytheofficial

action;second,theriskofanerroneousdeprivationofsuch

interestthroughtheproceduresused,andtheprobablevalue,

ifany,ofadditionalorsubstituteproceduralsafeguards;and[third], the Governments interest, including the function

13 Midgett v. Cook Inlet Pre-Trial Facility,53P.3d1105,1111(Alaska2002).

14 Id.(citingReynolds v. Kimmons,569P.2d799,801(Alaska1977)).

15 Id.(footnotesomitted).

16 Id.

17 424U.S.319(1976).

18 Midgett,53P.3dat1111(citingIn re K.L.J.,813P.2d276,279(Alaska

1991)(incorporatingthe Mathews testintoAlaskalaw));see also Mathews,424U.S.at

321,335.

-7- 7026


8/10

involvedandthefiscalandadministrativeburdensthatthe

additional or substitute procedural requirement would[ ]entail.19

In Midgett, we held that a claimants economic interests were not particularly

compellingunderMathewsandwerecertainlylesscompellingthantheaforementioned

contexts inwhichappointmentofcounselisrequired.20Wefurtherheldthat,while

Midgettwouldhavecertainlybeenbetteroffwithalawyerthanwithout,thisfactinand

ofitselfwasinsufficienttoshowthatthesuperiorcourthadviolatedhisdueprocess

rightsinfailingtoappointone. 21

Earlsmotionforappointmentofcounselmakesclearthatnoneofthe

categoriesforwhichwehaverequiredappointmentofcounselapply. Wenextconsiderthe due process analysis. Barber and Earl complain of the Departments policies

regardinggamingsystemsandrestrictionsonmature-ratedvideogames.Theyarguethat

thesepoliciespertaintotheireconomicinterests(e.g.,thepossessionofproperty). Thus

Midgett is dispositive: These economic interests are insufficient to require the

appointmentofcounselasamatterofdueprocess.

The appointment of counsel in this context is not required by our

jurisprudence,andthusthesuperiorcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingEarls

motion.

C. ItWasErrorToDismissThePrisonersComplaintForFailureTo

StateAClaimUponWhichReliefCanBeGranted.

AlaskaRuleofCivilProcedure12(b)(6)providesforamotiontodismiss

19 Mathews,424U.S.at335.

20 Midgett,53P.3dat1111-12.

21 Id.at1112.

-8- 7026


9/10

ifthecomplaintfail[s]...tostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted. Inorder

forthenon-movingpartytosurvivethismotionitisenoughthatthecomplaintsetforth

allegations of fact consistent with and appropriate to some enforceable cause of

action....Thecourtmustpresumeallfactualallegationsofthecomplainttobetrueand[make]allreasonableinferences...infavorofthenon-movingparty. 22

WehavepreviouslyconsideredCivilRule12(b)(6)motionstodismisswith

specificregardtoproseprisoners.23InLarson v. State,Department of Corrections,we

emphasizedthestandardquotedabove,reiteratingthatacomplaintmustbeliberally

construedandamotiontodismissunderRule12(b)(6)isviewedwithdisfavorand

shouldrarelybegranted.24Wefurtherheldthatacomplaintshouldnotbedismissed

unlessitappearsbeyonddoubtthattheplaintiffcanprovenosetoffactsinsupport

ofhisclaimthatwouldentitlehimtosomeformofrelief. 25

Thesuperiorcourtruledthattherewerenoclaimsinthecasethatwerenot

class-actionclaims.Butthereweresixplaintiffsindividuallynamedonthecomplaint

filedinsuperiorcourt. Thenamedplaintiffs,includingBarberandEarl,soughttoassert

claimsonbehalfofthemselvesandotherAlaskaprisonersallegedlyaffectedbythe

Departmentspolicychangesandtochallengethesubstanceofthosechanges.Allofthe

plaintiffssignedthecomplaint.Weconstruethestatementthatthenamedplaintiffswere

assertingclaimsonbehalfofthemselvesasmeaningtheyeachwereassertingclaims

22 Caudle v. Mendel,994P.2d372,374(Alaska1999)(alterationandsecond

omission in original) (quotingKollodge v. State, 757 P.2d 1024, 1025-26 n.4

(Alaska1988)).

23 Larson v. State, Dept of Corr.,284P.3d1,3-5(Alaska2012).

24 Id.at6(internalquotationmarksomitted).

25 Id. (quoting Guerrero v. Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp., 6 P.3d 250, 254

(Alaska2000)).

-9- 7026


10/10

intheirindividualcapacity.Theyalsosoughttoassertclaimsonbehalfofallother

personswhoare nowor will be similarly situated: this phrase is the basis for the

prisonersefforttobringaclassaction.

Taking the allegations in the complaint as true as we must whenevaluatingamotiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaim 26theDepartmentspolicy

changesapplytoallofthenamed plaintiffssimilarly.Thenamedplaintiffsin their

individualcapacitiesmaybeentitledtoindividualrelief.Wethereforeconcludethatit

waserrorforthesuperiorcourttodismissthecaseonthegroundsthatnoindividual

claimswerestatedinthecomplaint.27

V. CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM the superior courts denial of Earls motion for class

certification.WealsoAFFIRMthecourtsdenialofEarlsmotionforappointmentof

counsel.WeREVERSEthecourtsdismissaloftheprisonerscomplaintforfailureto

stateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegrantedandREMANDforfurtherproceedings

consistentwiththisopinion.

26 Id.(Thecomplaintmustbeliberallyconstruedandwe treatallfactual

allegationsastrue.).

27 Barber also complains about the constitutionality of

DepartmentPolicy810.03,whichlimitstheamountofmailhecansendeachweekatstate expense. Because we are remanding these consolidated cases for further

proceedings,Barbercan raise thisissuein the superiorcourt. Wenotethatwehave

alreadyorderedtheDepartmenttopaythecostofmailingBarberslegalmailwith

respecttothiscasesolongasheremainsindigent. See Barber v. Schmidt,No.S-15141

(AlaskaSupremeCourtOrder,Aug.22,2013).

-10- 7026

barber v. schmidt, alaska (2015)

Documents