404 P.3d 140
Alaska2017Background
- On Oct. 6, 2010 inmate Alando Modeste (recently transferred) punched fellow inmate Radenko Jovanov in an Anchorage Correctional Complex module; Jovanov required outside medical treatment.
- One corrections officer (Robinson) supervised ~50 inmates in the module; the assault occurred behind stairs that partially blocked the officer’s view; surveillance video and testimony show Robinson responded within about five seconds after the blow.
- Jovanov sued DOC, Officer Robinson, and Modeste for negligence; DOC counterclaimed under AS 33.30.028 seeking reimbursement of medical costs it paid ($119,051.15).
- Superior court granted summary judgment: held Modeste liable on liability, granted DOC summary judgment dismissing Jovanov’s negligence claims (foreseeability, officer response, staffing/desk placement), and entered judgment for DOC on its counterclaim for medical costs; Jovanov appealed.
- Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for DOC on negligence (assault not foreseeable; staffing/desk-location decisions immune as discretionary policy), reversed and vacated the summary judgment on DOC’s counterclaim (sua sponte grant; remanded for proper proceedings), and remanded remaining damages issues against Modeste.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether assault was reasonably foreseeable such that DOC had duty to prevent it | Jovanov: Modeste showed hostility (argued loudly, referenced Jovanov’s crime) and DOC should have separated them | DOC: No specific warning identifying Jovanov; classification/assignment appropriate; no objective signs making this attack foreseeable | Held: Not foreseeable as a matter of law; no genuine dispute—summary judgment for DOC affirmed |
| Whether Officer Robinson failed to respond promptly to prevent injury | Jovanov: Officer should have intervened earlier during argument | DOC: Officer responded within ~5 seconds once assault occurred; video and testimony show no prior attention warranted | Held: Response prompt; no genuine factual dispute—summary judgment for DOC affirmed |
| Whether staffing levels and desk placement support a negligence claim | Jovanov: Understaffing, overcrowding, and a ‘‘blind spot’’ made the assault more likely | DOC: Staffing and facility layout are resource-allocation and policy decisions immune under discretionary function immunity | Held: These are discretionary/planning decisions immune from suit—summary judgment for DOC affirmed |
| Whether DOC could obtain summary judgment on its counterclaim for medical costs without proper motion/hearing | Jovanov: DOC did not properly pursue counterclaim; he needed records/opportunity and may lack ability to pay | DOC: Statute authorizes reimbursement; superior court properly applied AS 33.30.028 | Held: Sua sponte grant of summary judgment on counterclaim was improper and prejudicial; reversed and remanded for proceedings on DOC’s counterclaim (opportunity to litigate liability, amounts, ability to pay) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mattox v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 323 P.3d 23 (Alaska 2014) (discusses notice/foreseeability for inmate-on-inmate assaults)
- Hendricks-Pearce v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 254 P.3d 1088 (Alaska 2011) (addressed post-release reimbursement under AS 33.30.028)
- Steward v. State, 322 P.3d 860 (Alaska 2014) (discretionary function immunity analysis)
- Adams v. City of Tenakee Springs, 963 P.2d 1047 (Alaska 1998) (resource-allocation/staffing decisions immune from judicial review)