Opinion ID: 2570697
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Case against the police department and the city

Text: In his complaint, Capolicchio did not identify the specific police conduct that he considered misconduct. He also did not allege any basis for his claim of discrimination, such as race, disability or membership in another protected class, nor did he state that he is a member of a protected class. The Ketchikan Police Department and the City of Ketchikan (Ketchikan) did not answer the complaints, but filed an Alaska Civil Rule 12(b) and 12(c) motion to dismiss. Capolicchio responded to Ketchikan's motion by filing a document requesting an extension of time and a hearing to determine merit for this case. This document did not fully explain the basis for his claim, but it did state that the last time Capolicchio was in the police station, officers told him that they were to[o] busy and ... have things to do. After a series of extensions, Capolicchio eventually responded to Ketchikan's motion to dismiss. Capolicchio's response reiterated that the last time Capolicchio was in the police station he was told that officers were too busy to assist him. The superior court granted Ketchikan's motion and dismissed Capolicchio's case against the city and the police department. Capolicchio then filed a document entitled Reply to Dismissal. Noting that the certificate of service accompanying this document included the Apellate [sic] Court for the state of AK, Judge Thompson issued an order inquiring of Capolicchio whether he wished to stay proceeding against Levy while the dismissal of the case was appealed. Capolicchio replied in the affirmative.