In DeRemer v. State,[1] the supreme court held that dismissal of a claim absent acknowledgement of that claim was improper. DeRemer was charged with an infraction while in the custody of the Alaska Department of Correction (DOC), leading to a hearing at which DeRemer challenged the credibility of the disciplinary process and was ultimately punished. Following an unsuccessful challenges to the punishment, DeRemer, representing himself, brought suit against DOC employees Turnbull and Morris, alleging, inter alia, that his punishment had violated his First Amendment rights as it was implemented in retaliation against him. Turnbull and Morris filed a motion for dismissal that addressed DeRemer’s First Amendment claim by concluding only that he had not stated such a claim. The superior court granted the motion, citing Turnbull and Morris’ motion as its sole rationale. On appeal, the supreme court noted that dismissal is disfavored and should not be affected unless there is no doubt that a plaintiff cannot prove a set of facts entitling them to relief, a rule bolstered by the less stringent standard pro se pleadings are held to. Because the court below relied on Turnbull and Morris’ rationale, which failed to address DeRemer’s First Amendment claim, the court insufficiently acknowledged the claim and thus it was improperly dismissed. The supreme court reversed and remanded, holding that dismissal of a claim absent acknowledgement of that claim was improper.
[1] 453 P.3d 193 (Alaska 2019).
