Barber v. Schmidt, 354 P.3d 158

In May 2012, six Alaska prisoners filed a pro se putative class-action against Department of Corrections officials, asserting 18 claims regarding gaming-system policies and mature-rated games.
The superior court denied class certification, holding pro se plaintiffs cannot represent a class, and denied appointment of counsel; it also dismissed the complaint as failing to state a claim since all claims were class-action.
The named plaintiffs included Barber and Earl; the appeals were consolidated, with some appellees listed but not participating in the proceedings.
The complaint alleged claims both in individual capacities and on behalf of all other similarly situated inmates seeking class status for those affected by the policies.
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of class certification and appointment of counsel, but reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pro se inmates may represent a class	Barber/Earl contended they could seek class relief under Rule 23(a).	Department argued a pro se plaintiff cannot adequately protect a class per Hertz.	No abuse; pro se cannot represent a class; class certification properly denied.
Whether the court abused by denying appointment of counsel	Appointment of counsel was warranted to protect due process for prisoners.	No right to appointed counsel in most civil cases; no established exception here.	No abuse; court did not err in denying appointment of counsel.
Whether the dismissal for failure to state a claim was proper	Plaintiffs asserted both individual and class claims; dismissal overlooked potential individual claims.	If all claims were class-action claims, dismissal was appropriate.	Error to dismiss; the complaint included individual claims and should be remanded for further proceedings.

Hertz v. Cleary, 835 P.2d 438 (Alaska 1992) (pro se plaintiffs cannot properly represent a class)
Shaffery v. Winters, 72 F.R.D. 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (counsel qualifications and class-action leadership considerations)
Midgett v. Cook Inlet Pre-Trial Facility, 53 P.3d 1105 (Alaska 2002) (due process analysis under Mathews balancing test; appointment of counsel not automatic)
Caudle v. Mendel, 994 P.2d 372 (Alaska 1999) (liberal pleading standards and standard for civil termination)
Larson v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 284 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2012) (liberal construction of complaints and reluctant dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))
Reynolds v. Kimmons, 569 P.2d 799 (Alaska 1977) (due process considerations in procedural requirements)
In re K.L.J., 813 P.2d 276 (Alaska 1991) (Mathews framework incorporated into Alaska law)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (Mathews balancing test for due process interests)