Opinion ID: 2334960
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Heisey's state constitutional claims arise out of an assault or battery.

Text: If AS 09.50.250 includes state constitutional violations within its scope, then a state constitutional violation that arises out of assault or battery would be barred by the State's immunity. In his amended complaint, Heisey alleged that the correctional officers performed a `take-down' without provocation and slammed plaintiff into a concrete floor, slamming his face and head into the floor and caus[ing] serious physical injury and disfigurement. Based on these facts, Heisey alleged two instances of constitutional violations. First, the correctional officers' action constitutes the use of excessive force in violation of [a]rticle I, [s]ection 12 of the Constitution. Second, the State of Alaska violated its duty to institute proper training programs that [e]nsure prison employees do not use excessive force and violate the constitutional rights of prisoners, which violated Heisey's due process rights and violated his right to be free from the use of excessive force under the Alaska Constitution. Heisey's constitutional claims clearly arise out of an alleged assault or battery. As the State is immune from assault and battery claims, we conclude that Heisey's state constitutional claims are barred by the State's immunity.