In Leahy v. Conant,[1] the supreme court found the trial court’s failure to provide a pro se litigant support in filing summary judgment affidavits was not harmless. Leahy is a Muslim inmate at the Goose Creek correctional facility in Wasilla who observes halal dietary restrictions and uses scented oils in his daily prayers. Goose Creek served vegetarian or vegan meals to Leahy due to the costs of halal preparation and also prohibited the use of scented oils for health concerns. Leahy, representing himself pro se, sued under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The superior court granted the prison official’s motion for summary judgment citing the fact that Leahy had not raised a genuine dispute of material fact. Leahy argued on appeal that he received insufficient advice from the superior court as to how to properly file an affidavit or a motion to compel discovery, and consequently could not find enough evidence to support his opposition to the summary judgment motion. The supreme court found the trial court had erred by not giving Leahy more substantive advice about how to properly file affidavits, and that this error was not harmless because introducing facts about the nutritional inadequacy of Goose Creek’s halal meals would have created an issue of material fact sufficient for “Alaska’s lenient standard” to overcome summary judgment motions.
[1] 447 P.3d 737 (Alaska 2019).
