State, Department of Corrections v. Heisey
271 P.3d 1082
Alaska2012Background
- In Oct. 2006 an incident occurred between inmate Heisey and two correctional officers at the Anchorage Correctional Complex.
- In Oct. 2008 Heisey filed tort claims against the officers and State alleging assault, excessive force, negligent training, and other theories.
- The Attorney General certified the officers as acting within scope of employment and substituted the State as defendant under AS 09.50.253(c).
- The State moved to dismiss on sovereign-immunity grounds, arguing all claims arose from assault/battery.
- While the motion to dismiss was pending, Heisey moved to amend to substitute state constitutional claims for the tort claims; the superior court allowed the amendment.
- The court later stayed proceedings pending this court’s decision on reviewable certification, immunity, and availability of a state constitutional damages remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Attorney General’s scope-of-employment certification subject to judicial review? | Heisey urged review under AS 09.50.253(c). | State urged no judicial review of certification. | Yes; certification is judicially reviewable. |
| Do Heisey’s claims arise out of an assault or battery for which the State is immune? | Heisey argued some claims involve excessive force not barred by immunity. | State contends all claims arise from assault/battery and are barred. | Yes; claims arising from assault/battery (including excessive-force theories framed as such) are immunized. |
| Does Heisey have a state constitutional damages claim under these circumstances? | Heisey sought damages for state constitutional violations; suggested Bivens-type action. | State asserted immunity; no private state constitutional damages remedy here. | No; state constitutional damages claims are barred by AS 09.50.250(3) under these facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417 (1995) (certification reviewable under Westfall Act analogue)
- Alyeska Ski Corp. v. Holdsworth, 426 P.2d 1006 (Alaska 1967) (reviewability of administrative action within Alaska's constitutional framework)
- K & L Distribs., Inc. v. Murkowski, 486 P.2d 351 (Alaska 1971) (constitutional duty to review administrative action despite finality provisions)
- B.R. v. State, 144 P.3d 431 (Alaska 2006) (immunity analysis when claims collapse into employment-based liability; separate protective duties)
- Hertz v. Beach, 211 P.3d 668 (Alaska 2009) (alternative remedies can bar state Bivens-type claims; federal remedies can suffice)