Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. 

Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 

303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email 

corrections@akcourts.us. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA 

SABABU HODARI, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMEN

OF CORRECTIONS, 

Appellee. 

T 

) 

) Supreme Court No. S-16347 

 Superior Court No. 3AN-14-09035 CI 

 O P I N I O N 



 

 No. 7208 – October 27, 2017
 
 

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third 

Judicial District, Anchorage, Charles W. Ray, Jr., Judge. 

Appearances: Jon Buchholdt, Buchholdt Law Offices, 

Anchorage, for Appellant. John K. Bodick, Assistant 

Attorney General, Anchorage, and Jahna Lindemuth, 

Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee. 

Before: Stowers, Chief Justice, Bolger, and Carney, Justices. 

[Winfree and Maassen, Justices, not participating.] 

CARNEY, Justice. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

In May 2014 the Alaska Department of Corrections found Sababu Hodari, 

an inmate at Palmer Correctional Center, guilty of a disciplinary infraction. Hodari 

appealed the Department’s decision to the superior court, arguing that the Department 

violated his right to due process by failing to follow prescribed procedure in the 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

disciplinary hearing. While the appeal was pending the Department reversed its decision 

and removed the disciplinary records from Hodari’s file. The superior court then found 

that Hodari had effectively prevailed on his appeal, and it allowed him to recover costs 

and fees from the Department. Hodari moved for an award of $4,800 in attorney’s and 

paralegal fees. The court awarded Hodari fees and costs but did not specify the amount 

of the award in its order, so the Department moved for clarification of the fee-award 

order. In its clarification order the court stated that because Hodari had not shown that 

the paralegal fees were for legal work “ordinarily performed by an attorney,” he was 

only entitled to $1,800 in attorney’s fees. Hodari appeals, arguing that the superior court 

abused its discretion in refusing to award him paralegal fees. We disagree, and we 

therefore affirm the superior court’s fee award. 

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS 

At a Department of Corrections disciplinary hearing held in May 2014, 

Sababu Hodari was found guilty of planning an escape from Palmer Correctional Center. 

He filed an appeal in the superior court in August 2014, arguing that the Department had 

violated his right to due process by failing to provide him with a complete disciplinary 

report and by relying on evidence it did not disclose to him. While Hodari’s appeal was 

pending the Department informed the court that it intended to conduct a new hearing on 

Hodari’s disciplinary offense. The court therefore concluded that “Hodari has effectively 

prevailed here,” and it ordered the Department to show cause why the court should not 

grant Hodari his requested relief along with costs and fees. 

In its response to the show cause order the Department asked the court to 

require Hodari to file a motion for costs and fees; it requested that the “statement of costs 

and fees should include a statement of the specific work performed, the date the specific 

work was performed, who performed the work, the credentials of the person who 

performed the work, and the hourly rate for the work.” The superior court then issued 

-2- 7208
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an order dismissing the appeal, naming Hodari the prevailing party, and stating that 

Hodari “may seek costs and/or fees as may be allowed under the law.” 

Hodari’s counsel submitted a motion for award of attorney’s fees in which 

he stated that he had spent six hours at $300 per hour on the appeal, and that his office 

expended an additional twenty hours of “non-attorney (paralegal) time” at $150 per hour 

on the appeal. He did not itemize his fees in any further detail. The Department 

questioned the accuracy of this hourly reporting, asserting that “[t]here is no way filing 

the form pleadings, reviewing this 17-page record, listening to a 5-minute hearing CD, 

and writing this one argument took six hours of attorney time and 20 hours of paralegal 

time.” It asked the court to deny Hodari’s motion for attorney’s fees, or, if the court 

granted the motion, to require Hodari to submit “an itemized statement of the actual 

hours performed on this case which includes the work performed, the date of the work, 

who performed the work and the amount of time of the work performed on that date.” 

The court granted Hodari’s motion for attorney’s fees without ordering him 

to submit an itemized fee request. It determined that Alaska Appellate Rule 508, which 

governed the fee award in this case, allowed it to grant full reasonable fees and costs to 

Hodari as a constitutional claimant under AS 09.60.010.1 The court did not, however, 

1 AS 09.60.010(c) provides in pertinent part: 

In a civil action or appeal concerning the establishment, 

protection, or enforcement of a right under the United States 

Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Alaska, the 

court 

(1) shall award, subject to (d) and (e) of this section, full 

reasonable attorney fees and costs to a claimant, who, as 

plaintiff, counterclaimant, cross claimant, or third-party 

plaintiff in the action or on appeal, has prevailed in asserting 

the right . . . . 

-3- 7208
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

specify the amount of fees the Department was required to pay Hodari; it stated only that 

“[t]he requested attorney[’s] fees and costs are reasonable and would not impose a 

substantial and undue hardship on DOC.” 

The Department moved to clarify the court’s order, asking for clarification 

of three issues. First, it stated that neither Hodari’s motion for attorney’s fees nor the 

court’s order specified the amount of fees to be paid.2 Second, it noted that the affidavit 

attached to the motion for attorney’s fees listed both attorney and paralegal fees, but the 

court had not specified whether the Department was required to pay the paralegal fees. 

And third, it observed that although the court’s order mentioned costs, Hodari had not 

requested costs in his motion for attorney’s fees. The Department therefore argued that 

“a more specific order is necessary for the Department to remit payment.” Hodari filed 

a notice of partial non-opposition to the Department’s request for clarification, stating 

that he was seeking $4,800 in fees to be paid by May 19, 2016. 

In its order on the motion for clarification the court noted that 

AS 09.60.010, under which Hodari was entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, does not 

define the term “attorney’s fees.” The court therefore adopted the Alaska Civil Rule 82 

definition of attorney’s fees as “includ[ing] fees for legal work customarily performed 

by an attorney but . . . delegated to . . . [a] paralegal.” It noted that Hodari had not 

itemized his fee request or indicated whether the twenty hours of paralegal work he was 

requesting included work “customarily performed by an attorney,” and it concluded that 

the Department’s request for itemized details “was sufficient to raise the issue.” Because 

Hodari had not identified which of the paralegal hours fell within the definition of 

attorney’s fees, the court limited the fee award to “actual attorney time” and awarded 

Hodari did, in fact, specify in the affidavit attached to his motion for 

attorney’s fees that he was requesting a total of $4,800 in combined attorney and 

paralegal fees. 

-4- 7208
 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

Hodari $1,800 in attorney’s fees, the amount corresponding to the hours he had listed as 

attorney work. 

Following the court’s order, Hodari filed a motion for reconsideration 

arguing that the Department had not questioned whether the paralegal work was work 

“customarily performed by an attorney,” but rather had asserted that the number of work 

hours claimed was unreasonable. Because he believed the Department had not raised the 

question whether the paralegal fees were to be included in the attorney’s fees, he argued 

that it was error for the court to raise the question sua sponte. He argued that the court 

instead should have ordered him to submit a more specific, itemized list of the paralegal 

fees he was seeking so that “the court could examine the records for reasonableness.” 

In support of his motion for reconsideration, Hodari submitted an affidavit itemizing his 

paralegal fees. The court denied the motion, concluding that Hodari did not present any 

argument “that could not have been addressed” “in briefing on the motion for attorney’s 

fees.” The court reiterated that the Department had asked Hodari to itemize his requested 

fees, but Hodari had failed to do so. 

Hodari now appeals, arguing that the court abused its discretion in denying 

the award of paralegal fees. 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

We review a superior court’s award of attorney’s fees for abuse of 

discretion; the same standard of review applies when the superior court acts as an 

intermediate appellate court.3 We will find an abuse of discretion when the superior 

Miller v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, 54 P.3d 285, 289 (Alaska 2002); 

Cook Inlet Pipe Line Co. v. Alaska Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 836 P.2d 343, 348 (Alaska 

1992). 

-5- 7208
 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

court’s award of attorney’s fees is “arbitrary, capricious, manifestly unreasonable, or 

improperly motivated.”4 

IV. DISCUSSION 

In an appeal from an agency decision to the superior court, Appellate Rule 

508 governs the award of attorney’s fees.5 Attorney’s fees may be awarded under the 

rule only if they are “provided by statute, caselaw, or contract.” 6 For parties prevailing 

on a claim or appeal “concerning the establishment, protection, or enforcement of a right 

under the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Alaska,” 

AS 09.60.010(c) requires courts to award “full reasonable attorney fees and costs.”7 

Alaska Statute 09.60.010(c) does not specifically define “attorney’s fees.” However, 

“we have allowed the superior court to use Rule 82(b)(2) as a guideline in an 

administrative appeal,”8

 and Rule 82(b)(2) defines attorney’s fees as “includ[ing] fees 

for legal work customarily performed by an attorney but which was delegated to and 

4 Roderer v. Dash, 233 P.3d 1101, 1106 (Alaska 2010) (quoting Rhodes v. 

Erion, 189 P.3d 1051, 1053 (Alaska 2008)). 

5 Carr-Gottstein Props. v. State, 899 P.2d 136, 148 (Alaska 1995). 

6 Alaska R. App. P. 508(e)(1). 

7 See Krone v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 222 P.3d 250, 255-56 

(Alaska 2009). The statute establishes certain exceptions to this rule, neither of which 

applies here: A court may not award fees when the claimant had “sufficient economic 

incentive to bring the suit, regardless of the constitutional claims involved,” 

AS 09.60.010(d)(2), and a court may reduce the fee award when “the full imposition of 

the award would inflict a substantial and undue hardship upon the party ordered to pay 

the fees and costs or, if the party is a public entity, upon the taxpaying constituents of the 

public entity.” AS 09.60.010(e). 

Griswold v. Homer City Council, 310 P.3d 938, 943 (Alaska 2013) (citing 

Stalnaker v. Williams, 960 P.2d 590, 597-98 (Alaska 1998)). 

-6- 7208
 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

performed by an investigator, paralegal or law clerk.” Although the court has broad 

discretion in awarding attorney’s fees,9

 where a fee-award rule “authorizes reasonable 

actual fees, a court may not award attorney’s fees to a party who has not itemized his or 

her requested fees, when the opposing party has requested such itemization.”10 

A.	 	 The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Declining To Award 

Hodari Paralegal Fees. 

Hodari argues that the Department did not request an itemization of his 

attorney’s fees. He concedes that “had a specific and cognizable request for itemization 

been lodged, it would have been his duty to provide one.” 11 But he argues that the 

Department’s purported request for itemization consisted of only “one cursory sentence 

located in an alternative argument in the conclusion” of its opposition to attorney’s fees, 

and that this request was not sufficient to require him to submit a fee itemization. He 

asserts that, had the court ordered him to itemize his fee request, he “would have 

immediately complied” — indeed, he argues, once the court’s final order put him on 

notice of the itemization requirement, he duly submitted his itemized paralegal fee 

request along with his motion for reconsideration. 

9 Doubleday v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm’n, 238 P.3d 100, 

110 (Alaska 2010) (citing Alaska R. App. P. 508(e); Cleaver v. State, Commercial 

Fisheries Entry Comm’n, 48 P.3d 464, 470 (Alaska 2002)). 

10 Marron v. Stromstad, 123 P.3d 992, 1014 (Alaska 2005). By contrast, we 

have upheld awards of attorney’s fees in the absence of an itemized request when the 

paying party did not request fee itemization. Koller v. Reft, 71 P.3d 800, 810 (Alaska 

2003) (citing Luedtke v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 768 P.2d 1123, 1138 (Alaska 

1989)). 

Marron, 123 P.3d at 1013 (“[W]e have suggested that a prevailing party 

must itemize any requested fees where his or her opponent has made ‘a specific 

cognizable request for itemization.’ ” (quoting Koller, 71 P.3d at 810)). 

-7-	 	 7208
 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hodari’s argument that the Department’s request for fee itemization was 

not sufficiently specific and cognizable is not supported by our precedent. In Marron 

v. Stromstad we held that the paying party’s request for a “detailed listing of services” 

in her opposition to a motion for attorney’s fees was “sufficiently specific and 

cognizable” to require the moving party to submit a fee itemization.12 Like the paying 

party in Marron, the Department in this case included a clear, detailed request for fee 

itemization in its opposition to Hodari’s motion for attorney’s fees: It asked Hodari to 

provide “an itemized statement of the actual hours performed on this case which includes 

the work performed, the date of the work, who performed the work and the amount of 

time of the work performed on that date.” This request specifically identified the 

information sought from the itemization, and it was sufficient to require Hodari to submit 

a fee itemization.13 As the Department points out, Hodari did not present evidence 

regarding his paralegal fees until his motion for reconsideration, and courts will 

ordinarily not consider new evidence in a motion for reconsideration.14 Because Hodari 

12 Id. 

13 Cf. Koller, 71 P.3d at 810 (finding no specific, cognizable request for fee 

itemization where paying party “complained frequently about having to pay” and asked 

his own attorney for a fee itemization but “never made a motion in court seeking 

itemization”). This was also the second request for fee itemization submitted by the 

Department; in its earlier response to the court’s show cause order, it had requested a 

“statement of costs and fees [that] should include a statement of the specific work 

performed, the date the specific work was performed, who performed the work, the 

credentials of the person who performed the work, and the hourly rate for the work.” 

14 Achman v. State, 323 P.3d 1123, 1127 n.13 (Alaska 2014) (citing Koller, 

71 P.3d at 805 n.10). 

-8- 7208
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

failed to submit a fee itemization even after the Department’s specific and cognizable 

request, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the paralegal fees.15 

Hodari further argues that the court’s order was erroneous because it 

“results in a default presumption that all services performed by a paralegal are of a nature 

not normally performed by an attorney.” Without citing any legal precedent or 

presenting any argument about why the court should presume otherwise, he states that 

“[t]he record does not disclose any reason to presume that all of the paralegal hours 

claimed were for work that was of a nature not normally performed by an attorney.” 

The award of attorney’s and paralegal fees is left to the broad discretion of 

the superior court.16 The court may determine whether the requested fees are reasonable 

and may refuse to award fees based on “billings that are too vague to allow a fair 

determination that they were reasonably incurred or incurred in connection with the . . . 

15 Both Hodari and the court appear to conflate the fee-itemization 

requirement with the requirement that paralegal fees be for work “customarily performed 

by an attorney.” The court noted in its order that the Department’s request for fee 

itemization was sufficient to raise the issue of whether the paralegal fees met the 

definition of “attorney’s fees.” And although the court’s decision was based on Hodari’s 

failure to show that the paralegal fees were for legal work, Hodari dedicates his argument 

almost entirely to the fee-itemization requirement. The two bases for denial of paralegal 

fees are conceptually distinct, but we “may affirm the superior court on any basis 

supported by the record, even if that basis was not considered by the court below or 

advanced by any party.” Gilbert M. v. State, 139 P.3d 581, 586 (Alaska 2006). 

Alaskasland.com, LLC v. Cross, 357 P.3d 805, 825 (Alaska 2015) (“We 

have ‘consistently held that . . . the award of costs and fees [is] committed to the broad 

discretion of the trial court.’ ‘Therefore, any party seeking to overturn a trial court’s 

decision in this regard [bears] a heavy burden of persuasion.’ ” (quoting Schultz v. Wells 

Fargo Bank, N.A., 301 P.3d 1237, 1241 (Alaska 2013) (third alteration in original)). 

-9- 7208
 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lawsuit.” 17 Any requested attorney’s fees are therefore subject to a showing of 

reasonableness and connection to the litigation; by the same token, the court must have 

the discretion to determine whether requested paralegal fees are for work “customarily 

performed by an attorney.” Requiring the court to presume that all paralegal fees meet 

the definition of “reasonable attorney’s fees” would directly undermine the court’s 

discretion in this regard. Hodari’s argument is therefore without merit. 

B.		 Any Abuse Of Discretion In The Court’s Award Of Attorney’s Fees 

Was Harmless. 

Hodari argues that the superior court’s different treatment of attorney’s and 

paralegal fees was “arbitrary and capricious.” He notes that none of the hours for which 

he requested payment were itemized, yet the court granted the attorney’s fees and denied 

the paralegal fees. He concludes that the case should be remanded for a new 

determination of the attorney’s fee award. Hodari correctly notes that the Department 

requested itemization of all fees, not just paralegal fees. However, given the small 

amount of attorney’s fees at stake, any error in the court’s failure to require itemization 

of the attorney’s fees was harmless. In Capolicchio v. Levy, we affirmed a $488.20 fee 

award despite the moving party’s failure to submit a fee itemization in response to the 

paying party’s request.18 We concluded that the appellant 

is correct that Marron requires an itemized billing statement 

and that [the appellee’s] counsel did not provide one. But 

here, because the amount of attorney’s fees was so low and 

the hours [the appellee’s] counsel expended on defending the 

case were so minimal, any error in failing to order itemization 

was harmless: The superior court could consider the fee 

request to be reasonable per se. Under such circumstance, we 

17 Bobich v. Hughes, 965 P.2d 1196, 1200 (Alaska 1998). 

18 194 P.3d 373, 381-82 (Alaska 2008). 

-10­ 7208 
 

 

 

 

will not find reversible error in the failure to require 

19 itemization. [ ]

In light of this precedent, and in light of the fact that the Department that was burdened 

by any erroneously awarded fees has not objected to the erroneous fee award, we 

conclude that any abuse of discretion in the superior court’s decision to award attorney’s 

fees without itemization was harmless. 

We note, however, that the Department in its initial opposition to Hodari’s 

motion for attorney’s fees raised a legitimate concern about the accuracy of his time 

reporting. As the Department noted, Hodari’s attorney evidently reused briefs he had 

submitted in prior, unrelated appeals: The briefs in this case repeat verbatim entire 

passages from briefs filed in two similar, but unrelated, appeals.20 Attorneys may 

certainly reuse pertinent language from prior proceedings in their court filings. 

However, in doing so, they must accurately reflect the time spent preparing the 

documents for the particular matter at bar. In a case such as this one, where little more 

than the name of the appellant was changed from prior filings, the attorney’s obvious 

recycling of briefs should lead the court to consider carefully the attorney’s fee request 

to determine whether the amount requested is reasonable. Where requested fees are not 

sufficiently itemized or otherwise appear unreasonable, courts should not hesitate to deny 

those fees. Nevertheless, because the Department did not raise this issue again on 

appeal, we do not address further the question of the reasonableness of Hodari’s 

attorney’s fees. 

19 Id. 

Hodari’s attorney failed even to change the name of the other appellant to 

Hodari’s name in one passage. 

-11- 7208
 

20 
 

V. CONCLUSION 

Because the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the award of 

paralegal fees, and because any abuse of discretion in the award of attorney’s fees was 

harmless, we AFFIRM the superior court’s decision. 

-12- 7208