Richardson v. Municipality of Anchorage
360 P.3d 79
Alaska2015Background
- In July 2010 Richardson was identified in a Best Buy theft investigation; police went to his home July 13–14, 2010, a canine allegedly bit him in a crawlspace, and misdemeanor charges were later dismissed.
- Richardson (pro se) filed two separate civil suits ~two years later against the Municipality of Anchorage/APD, multiple officers, the State, Best Buy, and a Best Buy employee seeking substantial damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss both suits as barred by the two‑year statute of limitations.
- In the first suit (Judge Easter) the court concluded the cause accrued by July 14, 2010 and that Richardson’s filing was July 23, 2012, and dismissed.
- In the second suit (Judge Rindner) the court dismissed for untimeliness (complaint accepted July 30, 2012), but the record contained evidence (deficiency notice, prison legal‑mail logs, affidavit) creating a genuine dispute whether an earlier, technically defective filing was received by July 12–14, 2012.
- Richardson also argued tolling due to mental incompetency, separation from legal papers during incarceration, requested counsel, and sought evidentiary hearings; most of these arguments were rejected except that a factual question remained about the actual date his second complaint was commenced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the cause of action accrue? | Causes accrued when charges were dismissed (Sept 23, 2010) or later; discovery rule may delay accrual. | Injury and all essential elements were known by July 14, 2010; limitations expired July 14, 2012. | Accrual was no later than July 14, 2010; discovery rule not shown to delay accrual. |
| When was suit "commenced" for limitations purposes? | Richardson says he attempted to file earlier (district court filing returned with deficiency dated July 12, 2012; mailed corrected complaint July 19). | Official superior court filing stamp dates (July 23 and July 30, 2012) show untimely commencement. | For the first suit, filing was untimely. For the second suit, evidence created a genuine factual dispute about whether an effective (though technically defective) filing occurred before the deadline; dismissal vacated and remanded. |
| Tolling for mental incompetence (AS 09.10.140) | Richardson alleged PTSD, head trauma, limited education, treatment, and impaired ability to pursue claims. | Medical records show he was alert, oriented, and able to describe facts; no competent evidence he lacked capacity to understand/legal rights. | No genuine issue of material fact showing incompetency that would toll the statute; tolling denied. |
| Equitable tolling / appointment of counsel / evidentiary hearing / liberal construction of pro se filings | Separation from legal papers during lockdown/transfers and pro se status justify equitable tolling, appointment of counsel, more liberal construction, and hearings to develop record. | Alaska law does not recognize incarceration‑separation as tolling for civil suits; no right to appointed counsel in civil tort cases; liberal construction or hearings not warranted absent factual disputes. | Separation from papers insufficient as matter of law to toll; no right to appointed counsel; courts properly rejected liberal‑construction arguments. But an evidentiary hearing/remand was required on the narrow factual dispute over the second suit’s filing date. |
Key Cases Cited
- Larson v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 284 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2012) (treatment of materials outside pleadings on 12(b)(6) motions and conversion to summary judgment)
- Brotherton v. Brotherton, 142 P.3d 1187 (Alaska 2006) (independent review of statutes of limitation)
- Midgett v. Cook Inlet Pre‑Trial Facility, 53 P.3d 1105 (Alaska 2002) (no general right to appointed counsel in civil tort claims; Mathews balancing)
- Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 125 P.3d 335 (Alaska 2005) (mental incompetency tolling can apply where condition prevented understanding of injuries; contrasted facts)
- Hernandez‑Robaina v. State, 849 P.2d 783 (Alaska 1993) (inability to understand English insufficient to show incompetency for tolling)
- John’s Heating Serv. v. Lamb, 46 P.3d 1024 (Alaska 2002) (discovery rule for accrual of claims)
- Kelly v. Municipality of Anchorage, 270 P.3d 801 (Alaska 2012) (summary judgment standard and drawing inferences for nonmovant)
- Mullin v. State, 996 P.2d 737 (Alaska App. 2000) (technically defective pleadings may nonetheless satisfy a filing deadline)