Azimi v. Johns, 254 P.3d 1054

Azimi, a pro se plaintiff, sued David Johns for injuries from a 2005 car collision.
Pretrial, Azimi sought continuances on medical grounds; the court denied due to lack of evidence of incapacity.
Johns moved for partial summary judgment on wage loss and to dismiss for lack of exhibits and expert witnesses; final judgment favored Johns on wage loss and later dismissed the complaint.
Azimi later produced a doctor’s letter about sixth cranial nerve palsy with double vision, but the court found insufficient to delay trial and denied the continuance.
Azimi argued he lacked counsel; the court noted no general right to civil counsel and found due diligence issues in retaining counsel, but ultimately the case proceeded toward trial.
At trial call, Azimi could not present evidentiary support beyond trip sheets; the court granted partial summary judgment on wage loss and dismissed the remainder of the complaint for lack of evidence, leading to final judgment in Johns’s favor and appellate postures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the continuance denial was an abuse of discretion	Azimi argues illness and health issues prevented trial readiness.	Azimi failed to show incapacity; trial preparation could proceed.	No abuse; continuance denial affirmed.
Whether the court inadequately guided a pro se litigant on procedure	Breaches in advising how to oppose summary judgment harmed Azimi.	Not necessary to provide every procedural detail; notice sufficed.	Harmless error; guidance was deficient but not reversible.
Whether partial summary judgment on wage loss was proper	Trip sheets and income data prove wage loss with reasonable certainty.	Evidence failed to establish wage loss; no admissible proof of prior earnings.	Partially granted; wage loss on summary judgment was proper.
Whether dismissal of Azimi's complaint was proper	Court lacked authority to dismiss sua sponte without proper procedural steps.	Court had grounds to dismiss for noncompliance with orders and lack of evidence.	Dismissal was abuse of discretion; reversed and remanded.

Siggelkow v. Siggelkow, 643 P.2d 985 (Alaska 1982) (affords balancing of continuance under illness against prejudice)
Pollard v. Walsh, 575 P.2d 412 (Colo. 1978) (illness denial of continuance reversible when prejudice shown)
Fejer v. Paonessa, 231 P.2d 507 (Cal. App. 1951) (il lness without prejudice doctrine in continuance)
Breck v. Ulmer, 745 P.2d 66 (Alaska 1987) (pro se must be advised on procedure for opposing summary judgment)
Bauman v. State, 768 P.2d 1097 (Alaska 1989) (pro se notice requirements for summary judgment)
Collins v. Arctic Builders, 957 P.2d 980 (Alaska 1998) (inform pro se of defects in appeal as a due process safeguard)
Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Beadles, 731 P.2d 572 (Alaska 1987) (summary judgment review requires genuine issues of material fact)
Willoya v. State, Dep't of Corrs., 53 P.3d 1115 (Alaska 2002) (pro se guidance and due process considerations)
Okpik v. City of Barrow, 230 P.3d 672 (Alaska 2010) (summary judgment evidence standards and pro se considerations)