Kinnan v. Sitka Counseling
349 P.3d 153
Alaska2015Background
- Kinnan lived in a three-bedroom residence run by Sitka Counseling as part of a substance-abuse program; funding ended and Sitka Counseling gave him notice to vacate.
- Kinnan alleged assault and battery (Sept. 10 and Sept. 14 incidents), negligent hiring/supervision, trespass, emotional distress, violations of Alaska’s Landlord Tenant Act, and § 1983 constitutional claims against Sitka Counseling and two staff members.
- Sitka Counseling filed a forcible entry and detainer counterclaim; the superior court ordered Kinnan to vacate and held the Landlord Tenant Act did not apply to his occupancy.
- Pretrial deadlines were set; Kinnan’s counsel withdrew in Feb. 2013 and Kinnan proceeded pro se. He missed discovery/disclosure deadlines, filed a late witness list (Oct. 10), and requested a short continuance less than two weeks before trial.
- The superior court denied the continuance, limited Kinnan to calling himself, the defendants, and impeachment witnesses, excluded two affidavits as hearsay, allowed questioning about Kinnan’s mental disability, and entered judgment for Sitka Counseling on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kinnan) | Defendant's Argument (Sitka Counseling) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuance to obtain counsel | Denial deprived him of counsel and prejudiced his case; lacks funds and needs time to retain counsel | Kinnan lacked diligence in searching for replacement counsel; motion untimely (filed <2 weeks before trial) | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; no showing of diligence or substantial prejudice |
| Exclusion of late-disclosed eyewitness (Daniel Klannot Jr.) | Excluding Klannot prevented testimony that would corroborate threats/assault | Pretrial order required timely lists; nondisclosure justified sanction | Court should have considered lesser sanctions but exclusion error was harmless — Klannot’s testimony would not have changed result |
| Exclusion of affidavits (Fribush, Boyd) as hearsay | Affidavits were admissible evidence about Kinnan’s condition and property use | Affidavits were hearsay; witnesses were not available for cross-examination | Exclusion was proper; affidavits were hearsay and no exception applied |
| Cross-examination and judicial questioning about mental disability | Questions and judge’s questioning improperly probed disability and showed bias | Mental-status questions were relevant to perception, memory, credibility; Kinnan opened the issue | Not plain error; inquiry was probative and Kinnan raised his disability in pleadings/trial |
| Appearance of judicial bias | Cumulative rulings and judge’s demeanor created appearance of partiality | Adverse rulings and questioning do not, by themselves, show bias; judge assisted pro se litigant | No objective appearance of bias; rulings and conduct within judicial discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenway v. Heathcott, 294 P.3d 1056 (Alaska 2013) (continuance, affidavits, and appearance-of-bias discussion)
- Azimi v. Johns, 254 P.3d 1054 (Alaska 2011) (no general right to counsel in civil cases; diligence standard for continuances)
- Cartee v. Cartee, 239 P.3d 707 (Alaska 2010) (factors for sanctions under Rule 37 and discretion in sanctions)
- Barton v. North Slope Borough School Dist., 268 P.3d 346 (Alaska 2012) (harmless error standard for evidentiary exclusions)
- Janes v. Alaska Railbelt Marine, LLC, 309 P.3d 867 (Alaska 2013) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)