Alaska Employment Law

A recent order from Judge Timothy Burgess illustrates a tool the District of Alaska uses to manage some pro se litigation.  Without prompting by the other side, Burgess advised a pro se plaintiff in a Section 1983 case that he had failed to identify any federal right, advised him of the possibility of an adverse award of attorney fees, and gave him an opportunity to dismiss his complaint without further consequences.  Burgess issued the order in Wanda v. UAA Office of Financial Aid, 3:08-cv-00116-TMB (D.Alaska), where the plaintiff alleges that the University mishandled the processing of a student loan.   Order of June 10, 2008

Federal law recognizes that pro se litigants are at a disadvantage.  In recognition of that, and undoubtedly to conserve court system resources, the District of Alaska has issued a Pro Se Handbook. 

That solicitude for pro se plaintiffs requires courts to

liberally construe the complaint, and give the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt.  []  Before a court may dismiss [a pro se litigant’s] complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court must [also] provide him with a statement of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless it is clear that amendment would be futile.

Polt v. Anchorage Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc., 2006 WL 2168864 (D.Alaska 2006). 

A federal court also could help a pro se litigant obtain counsel.  28 USC § 1915(e)(1).  The court, however, has no authority to conscript counsel to represent a party to civil litigation.  Mallard v. United States Distirct Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989).  Judge Burgess is willing to refer some pro se litigants with apparently meritorious cases to Alaska Legal Services’ Voluntary Attorney Support.   See Anchorage School District v. W.O., 2006 WL 3771094 (D.Alaska 2006). 

Pro se litigants who request a waiver of the filing fee trigger special judicial review of their claims.  This happened in the Polt cases.  The statute that permits fee waiver, 28 USC § 1915(e)(2), requires the Court to promptly determine whether the action

(i) is frivolous or malicious;

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

Pro se litigants who don’t ask for a fee waiver might escape this initial screening.  But nothing prevents a court from using the same screening for pro se complaints.  In fact, that’s what happened in the Wanda matter, where the plaintiff was pro se but hadn’t asked for a waiver of the filing fee.