Appeal
from the Superior Court No. 1JU-15-00692 CI of the State of
Alaska, First Judicial District, Juneau, Louis J. Menendez,
Judge.
Kevin
Patterson, pro se, Wasilla, Appellant.
Elizabeth M. Bakalar, Assistant Attorney General, Juneau, and
Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellees.
Before: Stowers, Chief Justice, Maassen, Bolger, and Carney,
Justices.
Winfree, Justice, not participating.
OPINION
MAASSEN, Justice.
I.
INTRODUCTION
The
superior court dismissed a prisoner's complaint seeking
damages from a number of state actors on grounds that his
conviction and prison sentence for possession of child
pornography violated various provisions of the Alaska
Constitution. The prisoner appeals.
We hold
that a civil suit for damages allegedly caused by a criminal
conviction or sentence may not be maintained if judgment for
the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of the
conviction or sentence, unless the conviction or sentence has
first been set aside in the course of the criminal
proceedings. We also reject the prisoner's claim that the
superior court demonstrated an unfair bias against him. For
these reasons we affirm dismissal of the complaint.
II.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Kevin
Patterson has been incarcerated since 2013, having been
convicted after a bench trial of seven counts of possession
of child pornography. The Alaska Court of Appeals affirmed
his conviction in 2017.[1]
In May
2015 Patterson filed a 121-page civil complaint in superior
court in Juneau. The complaint named as defendants the
governor and his predecessor, the Alaska Legislature, a state
senator, the then-current and two former attorneys general,
an assistant attorney general, an attorney with the Office of
Public Advocacy, and the State of Alaska. The complaint
alleged that these state officials and entities had
"directly harmed... Patterson in numerous ways and [had]
violated his Constitutional Rights over and over." It
sought damages for Patterson's incarceration, violence
and emotional distress he allegedly suffered while in prison,
and the alleged denial of medical care.
Patterson's
complaint elaborated on his legal theories. He asserted that
his sentence violated the prohibition against double jeopardy
because it was enhanced by a prior misdemeanor conviction, in
another state, that was treated as a felony conviction for
purposes of sentencing in Alaska. He argued that his
conviction violated the due process clause because the child
pornography he was convicted of possessing was created
outside Alaska; he contended that ASH.61.127 criminalizes
only the possession of images created in the state. He argued
that his right to a presumption of innocence was violated
because the sentences for possession of child pornography
assume that the typical sex offender has committed many other
offenses that have gone undetected. He argued that the
sentencing statutes are based on flawed studies of sexual
predation and that the legislature made sentencing
distinctions based on an unwarranted animus toward sex
offenders. He claimed that the criminal statutes do not give
fair warning that possession of child pornography will be
punished more severely than other class C felonies and that
it violates due process to punish his crimes more severely
than some class B sexual and violent felonies. He asserted
that he was unconstitutionally denied access to certain
evidence at trial.
Patterson
also claimed it was a violation of equal protection to deny
him the right to a sentence review by a three-judge panel. He
asserted that denying him good time credit on his sentence
violated equal protection, due process, and the double
jeopardy prohibition. He asserted that the sentencing
statutes were unlawful bills of attainder and that they
unconstitutionally failed to consider his potential for
rehabilitation. He also contended that his sentence violated
Blakely v. Washington[2]because he was given a higher
sentence based on his prior misdemeanor conviction without a
jury finding that the enhancement was necessary. He asserted
that the length of time he was required to register as a sex
offender under the Alaska Sex Offender Registry Act was
unconstitutional because it was based in part on out-of-state
conduct.[3]Finally, he asserted that convicted sex
offenders are treated unfairly in proceedings involving the
termination of their parental rights.
The
Alaska Legislature and the state senator moved for dismissal
of the claims against them for failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted; the court granted their motion
based on legislative immunity. The State then moved for
dismissal of the remaining claims or, alternatively, for a
more definite statement. The superior court ordered Patterson
to file a more definite statement, and he submitted a 29-page
document that further explained his claims. The State renewed
its motion to dismiss, and the superior court granted the
motion, concluding that Patterson had not demonstrated that
any of the challenged laws and actions were unconstitutional
and he had therefore failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. After the superior court denied
reconsideration, Patterson filed this appeal.
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
"A
grant of a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state
a claim under Alaska Civil Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo.
In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, we liberally construe
the complaint and treat all factual allegations in the
complaint as true."[4] "Because motions to dismiss are
disfavored, a complaint should not be dismissed for failure
to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him or
her to relief."[5] And the claims of unrepresented litigants
are "liberally construed."[6] "A constitutional issue
presents a question of law which we review de novo, and to
which we apply our independent judgment."[7]
"A
judge's decision that he is actually capable of
conducting a fair trial is reviewed for abuse of
discretion," but "[t]he separate question whether a
judge's participation in a case would lead reasonable
people to question his ability ...