Opinion ID: 2570697
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Case against Levy

Text: Capolicchio's complaint against Levy, like his complaint against the city, did not allege any basis for his claim of discrimination, such as race, disability, or membership in another protected class. Again, he did not state that he is a member of a protected class. In June 2004 Ken Levy, acting pro se, filed a letter with the court in response to Capolicchio's allegations in his Motion for Injunction. Levy's letter stated, Mr. Capolicchio was under the influ[e]nce of alcohol when I refused him entry into our shelter. It had nothing to do with race, or religion. In July Capolicchio filed a document with the court requesting a formal hearing be granted to determine merit for this case and to explic[i]tly instruct the shelter Mng. Mr. Ken Levy to give a reasonable explanation why I have been refused accommodation to the public shelter. In September Capolicchio filed another document with the court describing his claim against Levy: Regarding discrimination: Mng. Mr. Kenneth Levy. Ac[t]ually, absolutely and effectively accused me of being under the influence of alcohol, when I was not nor intoxicated, as a pretext for barring me from the PATH, public facility. Previously when the local city government acted as mediator to enter the PATH, Mr. Ken Levy as typical claimed he has no space, the[n] when my name was given he say absolutely no: Reason, it seemed a paradox, I called someone a communist. Next to a religious leader he said: Thing didn't work! Then to a local reporter he said: I'm an alcoholic. This is injustice. That same day Capolicchio also filed a Reply to Dismissal, in which he stated that he believed the local police discriminated against him as a newcomer ... only from the continental U.S. This is the only assertion of a basis for discrimination against him in any of the documents Capolicchio filed with the court. In this document he also suggested that he has some language difficulties, although that is not asserted to have been a reason for the appellees' alleged discrimination. Capolicchio's final filing in this case, before it was dismissed as to all parties for lack of prosecution, was his affirmative response noted above to the superior court's request for clarification as to whether he intended that proceedings against Levy be stayed while he appealed the dismissal of his suit against Ketchikan. In that response, Capolicchio did not assert any basis for Levy's alleged discrimination against him. Capolicchio took no steps to perfect an appeal. No further action appears in the record on Capolicchio's claims against Levy until 2006. In January 2006 the court clerk's office dismissed the case as the result of the passage of one year with no activity in the file. Capolicchio filed a motion for continuation and reopen, in which he sought to undo the clerk's action. Judge Thompson ordered the case reinstated to the active list in March. Levy acquired legal counsel and moved for summary judgment in July 2006. Capolicchio did not respond to the motion for summary judgment, and the superior court did not inform Capolicchio of his right to respond. In August the court granted Levy's motion for summary judgment, there being no opposition thereto, for reasons stated in Levy's motion. Levy submitted a proposed final judgment approximately two months later. In November the court issued a preliminary Unopposed Final Judgment using the form Levy submitted. Levy filed a motion for attorney's fees, an affidavit of counsel concerning fees and costs, and a bill of costs. Capolicchio opposed the motion for attorney's fees. The superior court awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $488.20 and costs in the amount of $198.35, for a total judgment of $686.55. After the superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Levy, but before final judgment was entered by the court, Capolicchio prematurely filed a notice of appeal. [1] On appeal, Capolicchio is represented by counsel.