Opinion ID: 6536840
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Leahy Received Insufficient Guidance From The Superior Court On Filing Affidavits.

Text: Self-represented litigants are given considerable leeway when following procedural requirements. 13  '[T]he trial judge should inform a pro se litigant of the proper procedure for the action he or she is obviously attempting to accomplish.' But judges must be careful to maintain their impartiality; they therefore may not act as advocates for pro se litigants on substantive legal issues. 14 What the litigant is attempting to accomplish must be obvious. Judges have a heightened duty to advise self-represented litigants of the importance of submitting affidavits or other evidence to preclude summary judgment, due to its consequences. 15 In determining how much guidance the court should provide, we have noted the even greater disadvantage faced by self-represented litigants who are also incarcerated. 16 The superior court should have advised Leahy that he needed to submit affidavits when he opposed the officials' summary judgment motion. 17 Although Leahy filed an opposition to summary judgment, it did not satisfy Alaska Civil Rule 56(c) 's requirement for supporting materials - including depositions, answers to interrogatories, or affidavits - to show a genuine issue as to any material fact. 18 His need for procedural guidance was made more apparent when he filed a response to the officials' reply and further when he attempted to introduce new evidence in a motion for reconsideration. Leahy's response put the superior court on notice of his obvious attempt to obtain supporting materials. 19 He detailed his attempts  to obtain affidavits and other documentary evidence from Goose Creek's food service manager and its nutrition consultant to refute facts asserted in the officials' summary judgment motion. Leahy specifically noted that his discovery request was denied by Goose Creek's attorney because the request wasn't proper because [he] asked [for] it in the form of an affidavit. Leahy was therefore unable to obtain affidavits to support his claim that there were issues of material fact. Although Leahy filed his response months before the court entered final judgment, there is no indication in the record that the court made any attempt to inform Leahy how to properly file an affidavit or a motion to compel discovery during that time. The affidavits that Leahy did file in support of his opposition to the officials' motion to strike his response to their reply - also filed before the court entered final judgment - were his own statements and were used in nontraditional manners, suggesting confusion as to an affidavit's purpose. 20 It was an abuse of discretion not to provide some guidance to Leahy before granting the officials' summary judgment motion.