Opinion ID: 2632298
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cook presented sufficient evidence of excusable neglect.

Text: Civil Rule 60(b) sets forth a number of grounds that justify relief from a final judgment. Cook looks to apply the provisions of Rule 60(b)(1) which provide that a final judgment can be challenged within a reasonable time ... not more than one year for mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. Specifically, Cook claims that his actions showed excusable neglect. In an affidavit filed July 21 Cook described the circumstances that made it difficult for him to respond to the May 28 summons. These circumstances included: injuries suffered as a result of gunshot wounds that led to two surgeries, the administration of pain medication, and limited use of his right hand; confinement in a maximum security unit at Cook Inlet Correctional Facility where he did not have use of a phone until June 22; lack of familiarity with court rules; and preoccupation with his criminal defense. As a result of these circumstances, Cook claims that he was not able to respond to the summons before the twenty-day period had expired on June 18. In response to Cook's claims, Rowland alleges that those claims are incredible, that Cook shows a level of sophistication that would have allowed him to understand the significance of the complaint, and that Cook acted in bad faith, choosing to ignore the action on the belief that his assets were beyond the reach of the court. We have found excusable neglect in circumstances of disability which resemble in some respects those presented by Cook. In Gregor v. Hodges, [7] we held that the superior court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside a default judgment on excusable neglect grounds where the defendant had a broken ankle and pneumonia and was bedridden and under the influence of pain medication. In addition, the defendant had difficulty in obtaining counsel until after the default judgment had been entered. [8] We have also held that setting aside a default judgment may be warranted where a pro se litigant's default results from lack of familiarity with the rules, rather than gross neglect or lack of good faith, and where the litigant is unversed in the rules of civil procedure. [9] Although Cook was later able to obtain legal assistance to respond, he was initially unable to contact an attorney during the time relevant to the default. Based upon the circumstances presented by Cook, we find that his failure to respond to the complaint in a timely fashion is excusable. Cook was served with this lawsuit within two weeks of suffering multiple serious gunshot wounds. As a result, his claims that he underwent extensive medical treatment and was heavily medicated appear legitimate. In addition to his physical incapacitation, Cook was being held in a confined setting which allowed him minimal contact with the outside world. He was engaged in and likely preoccupied with defense of the extremely serious criminal charges filed against him. Based upon these circumstances, his neglect in responding before the superior court entered a default and awarded default judgment in his case was excusable. Rowland suggests that Cook acted in bad faith, but provides no reason to believe that Cook could profit by purposefully allowing a default to be taken against him. The suggestion of bad faith appears to be speculation and is not supported by any evidence.