Rae v. State, Department of Corrections
407 P.3d 474
| Alaska | 2017Background
- Michael Lee Rae, an Alaska DOC inmate, filed a pro se “petition” in superior court claiming DOC lacks constitutional authority to hold him and seeking immediate release.
- Rae alleged cruel and unusual punishment (solitary confinement, law library restrictions) but framed his complaint mainly as legal questions challenging DOC’s existence and authority.
- The superior court sua sponte dismissed the complaint with prejudice under Alaska R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a cognizable claim.
- Rae moved for reconsideration and sought a default judgment after dismissal; the superior court denied reconsideration and refused default relief.
- Rae appealed, arguing the dismissal was legally and procedurally erroneous and that the court should have given him substantive assistance as a pro se litigant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC is a valid state entity and can lawfully hold Rae | Rae argued DOC was created without constitutional authority (ex post facto, separation of powers, invalid executive order) and thus cannot imprison him | State argued DOC was lawfully created, statutes authorizing custody are not punitive/ex post facto, and executive reorganization is permitted by constitution/statute | Court held Rae’s challenge lacked merit; statutes authorizing DOC are valid and Rae stated no cognizable claim for release |
| Whether statutes cited by Rae are unconstitutional ex post facto laws | Rae claimed AS 33.30.051 and related provisions were ex post facto as applied to him | State noted those statutes do not criminalize conduct and predate Rae’s offenses, so no ex post facto problem | Court held statutes are not ex post facto and do not invalidate Rae’s custody |
| Procedural error: sua sponte dismissal and failure to cite authority | Rae argued Rule 7(a) barred dismissal prior to an answer and that the court should have provided legal citations | State relied on Rule 12(b) allowing pre-answer dismissal and noted courts may dismiss obviously deficient complaints sua sponte | Court held sua sponte dismissal was permissible where complaint was fatally deficient; no requirement to give findings or cite authority |
| Adequacy of assistance to pro se litigant | Rae argued the court should have relaxed pleading rules and guided him how to amend to avoid dismissal | State argued judges must remain impartial and cannot provide substantive legal advocacy | Court held the court did not abuse discretion; it may give procedural leeway but cannot provide substantive legal advice, and Rae’s claims were inherently meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Pedersen v. Blythe, 292 P.3d 182 (Alaska 2012) (standard of review for dismissals)
- Larson v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 284 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2012) (dismissal standard and pleading sufficiency)
- Doe v. State, 189 P.3d 999 (Alaska 2008) (explanation of ex post facto prohibitions)
- Dep’t of Corr. v. Kraus, 759 P.2d 539 (Alaska 1988) (review of prison disciplinary proceedings despite APA inapplicability)
- Foondle v. O’Brien, 346 P.3d 970 (Alaska 2015) (dismissal standards and due process/jury-trial concerns)
- Breck v. Ulmer, 745 P.2d 66 (Alaska 1987) (treatment of pro se pleadings and judicial guidance limits)