Patterson v. Walker, 429 P.3d 829

Background

Kevin Patterson, convicted after a 2013 bench trial of seven counts of possession of child pornography, filed a 121‑page civil complaint in 2015 seeking damages from multiple state actors and entities for harms related to his conviction, sentence, and treatment in custody.
Patterson alleged numerous constitutional defects: double jeopardy, due process (statute’s reach and notice), presumption of innocence, flawed sentencing studies, animus-based classification, Blakely error, unequal sentencing, denial of access to evidence, and challenges to sex‑offender registration and related statutory provisions.
The Legislature and a state senator were dismissed on legislative immunity grounds; the State moved to dismiss the remaining claims for failure to state a claim or for a more definite statement.
The superior court ordered a more definite statement, reviewed Patterson’s amended pleading, and dismissed his remaining claims for failure to state a claim; Patterson’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Patterson appealed, arguing (1) his civil claims were proper despite his outstanding conviction and (2) the trial judge displayed disqualifying bias.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Patterson may pursue a civil damages suit that would require invalidating his conviction or sentence	Patterson sought damages for harms resulting from his conviction and alleged unconstitutional statutes/procedures	State argued that allowing the suit would usurp the criminal process and create conflicting judgments; claims should be pursued in criminal/post‑conviction proceedings	Court held such a suit is barred if a favorable civil judgment would necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction or sentence unless the conviction/sentence has already been invalidated (Heck rule applies)
Whether any of Patterson’s alleged harms were independent of conviction validity and therefore cognizable	Patterson asserted some claims (e.g., assaults and denial of care in pretrial detention; challenge to a child‑welfare provision) as independent harms	State argued many allegations necessarily attacked conviction/sentence; some claims were waived or lacked standing	Court found most claims implicated conviction/sentence invalidity and were dismissed; independent claims were either waived on appeal, expressly reserved, or Patterson lacked standing to raise certain statutes
Whether the trial judge’s language and rulings showed disqualifying bias requiring recusal	Patterson cited judge’s remarks describing offenses as "incredibly serious" and characterizing some arguments as "without merit" or "very troubling"	State argued adverse rulings and critical language do not demonstrate bias; judge acted within discretion and explained rulings in writing	Court held the remarks and rulings did not demonstrate disqualifying bias; no abuse of discretion and no reasonable basis to question the judge’s fairness
Procedural requirement for relief when conviction is challenged in civil suit	Patterson argued civil relief should be available despite pending/standing conviction	State relied on precedent requiring prior invalidation of criminal judgment before civil recovery for claims that would imply invalidity	Court reaffirmed that a plaintiff must first obtain reversal, expungement, habeas relief, or similar invalidation before pursuing damages that would imply invalidity

Key Cases Cited

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (a plaintiff cannot recover damages for constitutional injury that would imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence unless the conviction/sentence has been invalidated)
Wilson v. MacDonald, 168 P.3d 888 (Alaska 2007) (attack on the validity of a criminal plea or conviction must proceed through criminal post‑conviction or appeal, not civil litigation)
Griswold v. City of Homer, 252 P.3d 1020 (Alaska 2011) (party generally lacks standing to assert the constitutional rights of another)