RANDELL G. JACKSON, Appellant,
v.
BOROUGH OF HAINES, JOSHUA KNORR, JASON F. RETTINGER, ADAM PATTERSON, SIMON FORD, GARY LOWE, DARSIE CALBECK, a/k/a CULBECK, MARK EARNEST, AMY WILLIAMS, and JAMES SCOTT, Appellees.
Appeal
from the Superior Court No. 1JU-14-00839 CI of the State of
Alaska, First Judicial District, Juneau, Louis J. Menendez,
Judge.
Randell G. Jackson, pro se, Haines, Appellant.
Ruth
Botstein, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and
Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellees Amy
Williams and James Scott. No appearances by Borough of
Haines, Joshua Knorr, Jason F. Rettinger, Adam Patterson,
Simon Ford, Gary Lowe, Darsie Calbeck, a/k/a Culbeck, or Mark
Earnest.
Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Stowers, Maassen, and Carney,
Justices. [Winfree, Justice, not participating.]
OPINION
BOLGER, CHIEF JUSTICE.
I. INTRODUCTION
An
individual brought civil claims against the prosecutors who
secured his convictions for assault and resisting arrest,
alleging that they committed various torts and violated his
constitutional right to due process. The superior court
dismissed his state and federal claims, concluding that the
prosecutors enjoyed absolute immunity. We agree that the
prosecutors are protected by absolute immunity from both the
state and federal claims because they were acting in their
official capacity as advocates for the State when they
committed the acts that gave rise to the complaint.
Accordingly we affirm the superior court's dismissal of
the claims against them.
II.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Randell
Jackson was charged with disorderly conduct, assault, and
resisting arrest after a 2012 interaction with three police
officers in Haines. Amy Williams, an assistant district
attorney, first prosecuted Jackson on these charges, but her
efforts resulted in a mistrial. James Scott, the Juneau
district attorney, oversaw the second round of proceedings
against Jackson, which led to his conviction and sentencing.
Jackson appealed his convictions in March 2016 to the
superior court, which reversed his conviction for disorderly
conduct but affirmed his assault and resisting arrest
convictions.
On
September 4, 2014, Jackson[1] filed a civil complaint against Scott,
Williams, various police officers and state employees
involved in his arrest and prosecution, and the Borough of
Haines.[2] He brought several constitutional claims
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983[3] and tort claims under state law.
He alleged that the arresting officers provided false
testimony at his trial, that Scott and Williams refused or
neglected to prevent the presentation of this false
testimony, that they knowingly or recklessly used this false
testimony to convict Jackson, that Williams "made an
illegal request for a bench warrant to be issued against [a]
defense witness," that Williams "advised and
strategized" with the police department regarding
Jackson's prosecution, and that Scott "made
misrepresentative statement[s] using ethos, speculation and
experimentation instead of evidence to wrongfully convict
Jackson." Jackson sought recovery for malicious
prosecution, malicious abuse of process, conspiracy,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent
infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and the
violation of various rights established by the federal
constitution.
Jackson
then moved to stay his civil case until his criminal appeal
was resolved. While the court was considering the stay
motion, Scott and Williams moved to dismiss Jackson's
claims against them under Alaska Civil Rule
12(b)(6).[4] They argued that "[i]t is
well-settled that absolute immunity bars claims for monetary
damages against prosecutors when acting in their roles as
advocates" and that the conduct challenged in
Jackson's complaint "fall[s] squarely within the
scope of... Scott's and . . . Williams' absolute
immunity as prosecutors."
The
superior court granted both Jackson's and the
prosecutors' motions in September 2015. Regarding the
motion to dismiss, it explained that "all of Mr.
Jackson's claims against... Scott and... Williams arose
after the criminal complaint was filed as part of his
criminal prosecution. Thus Mr. Jackson's allegations
against [them] involve activities intimately associated with
the judicial phase of Mr. Jackson's criminal
prosecution." Accordingly the superior court found that
Scott and Williams were "entitled to absolute
prosecutorial immunity."
Jackson's
criminal appeal concluded in March 2016, and the superior
court dissolved the stay in his civil action in September
2017. In October Jackson moved to continue the stay until he
had exhausted all of his post-conviction remedies, but the
superior court eventually denied this motion. Upon the motion
of the prosecutors, the superior court entered judgment in
their favor under Alaska Civil Rule 54(b)[5] in December
2017.[6] The superior court also awarded the
prosecutors an attorney's fee award of $4, 311.87,
calculated under Alaska Civil Rule 82(b)(2).[7] Jackson
appeals.[8]
III.
DISCUSSION
Jackson
raises a number of issues on appeal. He challenges the
superior court's dismissal of his claims against the
prosecutors under Rule 12(b)(6) and the attorney's fees
awarded to them. Jackson also argues that the superior court
erred by denying his motion to continue the stay of his civil
case and by denying his motion for default judgment against
the Borough of Haines. Finally, Jackson challenges the
validity of his underlying criminal convictions.
A.
It Was Not Error For The Superior Court To Dismiss
Jackson's Claims On The Basis Of Absolute
Immunity.
"A
complaint is subject to dismissal under Civil Rule 12(b)(6)
'when its allegations indicate the existence of an
affirmative defense, but the defense must clearly appear on
the face of the pleading.' "[9] Jackson's complaint
asserted claims for relief under both federal and Alaska law.
The superior court applied the same reasoning to
Jackson's state and federal claims: that prosecutors are
entitled to an affirmative defense of absolute immunity for
"acts intimately associated with the judicial phase of
the criminal process," and that the conduct that gave
rise to Jackson's complaint occurred within that phase.
"We review decisions granting or denying motions to
dismiss de novo."[10] "The applicability of both state
and federal immunity are questions of law that are also
subject to de novo review."[11]
1.
The affirmative defense of absolute prosecutorial immunity is
available under both federal and state law.
The
United States Supreme Court has long held that prosecutors
enjoy absolute immunity from claims brought under §
1983, the statute which authorized Jackson's federal
claims, when performing acts "intimately associated with
the judicial phase of the criminal
process."[12] But we have not yet decided whether
prosecutors may assert an absolute immunity defense against
state-law causes of action, like Jackson's malicious
prosecution and conspiracy claims.[13]
In
Imbler v. Pachtman, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded
that prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity from
§ 1983 claims.[14] The Court determined that the nature of
the prosecutor's role requires the "exercise [of]
his best judgment both in deciding which suits to bring and
in conducting them in court" and that "[t]he public
trust of the prosecutor's office would suffer if he were
constrained in making every decision by the consequences in
terms of his own potential liability in a suit for
damages."[15] The Court also reasoned that, absent
absolute immunity, suits for damages "could be expected
with some frequency," which would divert the
prosecutor's "energy and attention . . . from the
pressing duty of enforcing the criminal
law."[16] The Court concluded that these
considerations outweighed the fact that absolute
prosecutorial immunity would "leave the genuinely
wronged defendant without civil redress."[17]
We find
this reasoning persuasive. Prosecutors perform an
indispensable role in the administration of justice and the
maintenance of public safety. Their job requires them to make
decisions about how and when to prosecute, and which cases to
bring in order to best serve the public good. Exposure to
civil liability for their decisions could affect
prosecutors' judgment, eroding public trust in the office
and hampering their ability to pursue cases in the
public's interest.[18]
Moreover,
liability in tort for claims like malicious prosecution would
require an inquiry into a prosecutor's
motives.[19] This is a question of fact, the
determination of which would likely require a
trial.[20] Even if such claims were relatively
infrequent, the burden of defending them in what could be
lengthy or complex proceedings would detract from the
prosecutor's ability to fulfill the duties of his or her
office.[21]
A rule
of absolute prosecutorial immunity may leave injured parties
with no meaningful alternative remedies or avenues for
relief. But the importance of the office and threat that its
efficacy will be eroded by defensive litigation outweigh this
concern.
Jackson
questions whether "a certain class of people"
should be "above the constitutional rules of law."
But he does not argue that a different analysis of the
immunity defense should be applied as a matter of state law.
We thus
join the U.S. Supreme Court and the majority of other
states[22] in holding that prosecutors are entitled
to absolute immunity from tort claims when acting in their
role as advocates for the State.
2.
The prosecutors are entitled to assert absolute immunity
because they were acting in their roles as advocates of the
State.
Having
determined that absolute immunity is available to the
prosecutors as an affirmative defense to state-law claims, we
must now decide whether they are entitled to assert it in
this case. The focus of this inquiry is on the nature of the
conduct that gave rise to Jackson's claims. Prosecutors
enjoy absolute immunity when performing acts "intimately
associated with the judicial phase of the criminal
process."[23] The U.S. Supreme Court has explained
that absolute immunity protects actions taken in the capacity
of an advocate, but not necessarily "investigative or
administrative tasks."[24]
The
superior court found that Scott and Williams were entitled to
an absolute immunity defense because all of Jackson's
claims challenged conduct that "arose after the criminal
complaint was filed as part of his criminal
prosecution." Because of this it determined that the
prosecutors' actions were "intimately associated
with the judicial phase of Mr. Jackson's criminal
prosecution." Jackson argues on appeal that Scott and
Williams each acted negligently in an administrative
capacity, prior to occupying the role ...