Appeal
from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third
Judicial District, No. 3AN-16-09563 CI Anchorage, Eric A.
Aarseth, Judge.
Appearances: Elias Robinson, pro se, Anchorage, Appellant.
Jonathan P. Clement, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage,
and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee.
Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and
Carney, Justices.
OPINION
WINFREE, JUSTICE
I.
INTRODUCTION
A
self-represented litigant appeals from the dismissal of his
complaint against Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC)
for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. Because the superior court gave the litigant
multiple opportunities to amend his complaint before it
correctly concluded that all of his claims were either
time-barred, subject to a res judicata defense, or
inadequately pleaded, we affirm the superior court's
decision.
II.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Elias
Robinson appeals from the dismissal of his 2016 complaint
against AHFC. Because his complaint refers to previous
administrative and superior court proceedings, relevant
history is summarized below in Subsections A-C. Subsection D
describes the superior court proceedings from which Robinson
appeals.
A.
2009 Landlord-Tenant Litigation
Robinson
and his family rented an Anchorage apartment from the
Johnsons. Robinson's daughter was bitten by another
tenant's dog in June 2008. The Robinsons'
relationship with the Johnsons soured quickly thereafter. The
Johnsons asked the Robinsons to pay for repairing damage to
their apartment, and the Robinsons disagreed that they were
responsible. The parties mutually agreed to a termination of
the Robinsons' tenancy, and they moved out in January
2009.
Robinson's
wife then sued the Johnsons for the daughter's
dog-bite-related injuries. The Johnsons counterclaimed for
the alleged apartment damage. The superior court dismissed
the Robinsons' personal injury claim and entered judgment
in the Johnsons' favor on their property damage
counterclaim in September 2009. Robinson and his wife
subsequently filed for bankruptcy protection, and the
judgment debt was discharged.
B.
2010 To 2011 Housing Voucher Termination
When
the Robinsons lived in the Johnsons' apartment, AHFC paid
part of their monthly rent through a federal housing voucher
program. After the Johnsons were awarded judgment on their
property damage claim, AHFC notified the Robinsons that they
were being terminated from the program for failure to comply
with its terms because they had damaged their apartment. The
Robinsons requested an administrative review, and in December
2009 an AHFC hearing officer affirmed the Robinsons'
housing benefit termination. The Robinsons then requested an
informal hearing.
At the
informal hearing two AHFC employees testified that it was
AHFC s policy to terminate a family from the voucher program
if a landlord obtained a judgment against the family for
damaging an apartment. The Robinsons argued that because the
judgment against them had been discharged in bankruptcy, AHFC
could not rely on the judgment to terminate them from the
voucher program. AHFC's hearing officer disagreed and
upheld the termination in September 2010.
Robinson,
with attorney assistance, appealed AHFC's administrative
determination to the superior court in October. The appeal
was stayed in November for AHFC to consider possible
mitigating circumstances in the Robinsons' case. The
superior court ordered AHFC to keep the Robinsons'
subsidy in place while reconsidering the termination
decision. At a subsequent hearing the Robinsons presented
evidence of medical problems they had had during their
tenancy. In March 2011 an AHFC hearing officer again upheld
AHFC's termination decision, concluding that the
Robinsons had failed to demonstrate mitigating circumstances
that would excuse damaging or failing to maintain the
apartment.
In
August Robinson's attorney withdrew as counsel in the
superior court appeal of AHFC's decision. In September
2011 Robinson and AHFC agreed to dismiss the appeal with
prejudice.
C.
2011 Eviction Action
While
the Robinsons were appealing AHFC s housing voucher
termination, they resided in an Anchorage apartment owned by
T. McGlohn. In January 2011 McGlohn initiated an eviction
action against them, alleging nonpayment of rent. The
Robinsons answered, claiming as an affirmative defense that
AHFC had failed to pay part of its portion of the rent.
Trial
was held over the course of three days in November 2012 and
May 2013. McGlohn called AHFC's housing specialist to
testify on his behalf on the first day. She apparently
testified about the Robinsons' housing voucher being
terminated for failure to comply with program rules. The
district court ultimately entered judgment for McGlohn in
November 2013.
The
Robinsons appealed the district court's decision to the
superior court in December. The Robinsons appear to have
prevailed on appeal at least in part; jurisdiction was
returned to the district court in January 2015. The case
apparently was settled in December and the court vacated a
scheduled trial. The parties then stipulated to dismiss the
case with prejudice in February 2016.
D.
2016 Complaint Against AHFC
In
October 2016 Robinson filed a one-page complaint against
AHFC. Read liberally, the complaint appears to bring four
claims: (1) AHFC improperly terminated Robinson's housing
choice voucher; (2) Robinson did not receive a fair hearing
from AHFC regarding the voucher termination; (3)
Robinson's wife would not have had judgment entered
against her for damage to the Johnsons' apartment if AHFC
had completed necessary inspections and walk-throughs that
would have shown the Robinsons had not, in fact, damaged the
apartment; and (4) AHFC employees' testimony at
McGlohn's eviction action "secur[ed] the termination
of [the Robinsons'] housing voucher."
After
considerable wrangling about service of process and
Robinson's efforts to obtain entry of default against
AHFC, the court ordered AHFC to answer Robinson's
complaint. AHFC instead filed a motion to dismiss, arguing
that Robinson's complaint failed to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted.[1]
AHFC
interpreted Robinson's claims as arising entirely out of
its housing voucher termination, the litigation of which had
concluded in 2011 when the parties stipulated to dismiss the
superior court appeal with prejudice, and AHFC thus asserted
that Robinson's claims were barred by the statute of
limitations and the doctrine of res judicata. AHFC argued
that if Robinson had tort claims, the statute of limitations
was two years[2] and that if Robinson had contract claims,
the statute of limitations was three years.[3] Robinson opposed
AHFC's motion, arguing that AHFC's failure to file an
answer entitled him to a ...