Opinion ID: 2551099
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Sengupta's Current Malpractice Action Against Wickwire

Text: On March 26, 2002, Sengupta filed a pro se complaint against Thomas Wickwire [19] alleging malpractice and breach of contract. [20] The complaint asserts that [a]t all periods of representation ... the defendant failed to protect plaintiff's record, failed to raise appropriate claims, failed to timely file an appeal and generally failed to properly represent and protect the interests of the plaintiff. Sengupta moved for partial summary judgment, asserting that if Wickwire had filed the appeal from Judge Hodges's decision on time, Sengupta would have prevailed in his claims that UAF did not afford Sengupta due process during his pre-termination hearings and that Rice improperly applied collateral estoppel to the Parrish findings. Sengupta also claimed that Wickwire should have raised his First Amendment claims during one of his two administrative hearings. Wickwire also moved for summary judgment, arguing that all of Sengupta's claims against him were time-barred. On August 19, 2003, Superior Court Judge Richard D. Savell granted summary judgment to Wickwire on all of the claims. Sengupta moved for relief from judgment under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b) following the issuance of Judge Savell's decision. Sengupta claimed that the superior court erred by issuing a judgment without addressing Sengupta's claim that, had Wickwire filed the appeal on time, Sengupta would have prevailed in arguing that he should have been afforded a pre-termination hearing by the tenured faculty of his unit. Judge Savell denied the motion and issued a final judgment dismissing all of Sengupta's claims. Sengupta filed this appeal.