Opinion ID: 2628010
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rathke adequately raised his constitutional claims.

Text: Rathke argues that the superior court should have considered all of his claims before dismissing his complaint. [11] CCA argues that Rathke failed to preserve his constitutional claims against it and its employees since he did not raise the constitutional claims in his opposition to CCA's motion to dismiss. The pleadings of pro se litigants should be held to less stringent standards than those of lawyers. [12] We have held that where the essence of a pro se litigant's argument is easily discerned from his briefs, the trial court should consider the pro se litigant's argument, provided that the applicable law is well established and the opposing party would not be prejudiced by the court's consideration of the issue. [13] Under these standards, Rathke's constitutional arguments are adequately raised. Contrary to CCA's assertion that Rathke did not raise constitutional claims, Rathke's brief in the superior court in opposition to CCA's Rule 12(b)(6) motion argued that CCA's failure to abide by the terms of the Cleary FSA violated Alaska inmate's constitutional rights. In addition, Rathke referred to the property int[e]rests in the `Cleary FSA' which entitles the plaintiff, as a member of the Cleary class[,] to the benefits and protections accorded under the `Cleary FSA,' which he earlier characterized as constitutional. [14] Finally, neither CCA nor its employees has alleged that they would be prejudiced by our consideration of Rathke's constitutional arguments.