Raymond Katchatag v. State of Alaska, Department of Corrections

── Raymond Katchatag v. State of Alaska, Department of Corrections ── Case No.: S19133 Court: Alaska Supreme Court Date: March 11, 2026 Category: General NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. A party wishing to cite such a decision in a brief or at oral argument should review Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d). THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA RAYMOND KATCHATAG, ) ) Supreme Court No. S-19133 Appellant, ) ) Superior Court No. 1JU-22-00704 CI v. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION STATE OF ALASKA, ) AND JUDGMENT* DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ) ) No. 2139 – March 11, 2026 Appellee. ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, First Judicial District, Juneau, Marianna C. Carpeneti, Judge. Appearances: Raymond Katchatag, pro se, Seward, Appellant. Christopher W. Yandel, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and Treg Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee. Before: Carney, Chief Justice, and Borghesan, Henderson, Pate, and Oravec, Justices. INTRODUCTION An inmate sued the Department of Corrections (DOC) and DOC officials alleging violations of his constitutional rights. After almost two years of litigation and multiple amendments to the complaint, the superior court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice because the inmate had failed to properly serve any defendants with the * Entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214. summons and complaint as required by Alaska Civil Rule 4. The inmate then filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied. The inmate appeals both the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice and the denial of the motion for reconsideration. We conclude that the superior court did not abuse its discretion either in dismissing the case or in denying the motion. But because the superior court did not warn the inmate that he would be unable to refile the lawsuit if he failed to comply with Rule 4, it was an abuse of discretion to designate the dismissal as being with prejudice. Therefore, we remand for the court to reissue its order as a dismissal without prejudice. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS A. Initial Complaint Raymond Katchatag is an inmate in DOC custody. In July 2022, Katchatag and two other inmates filed suit in superior court against DOC and a number of DOC officials. The complaint alleged that the defendants had violated the inmates’ constitutional rights by furnishing cells in their housing unit with “a concrete slab and block” instead of “an actual desk with stool combination and a small shelf.” That same day, Katchatag filed a motion asking the court to “fax copies of the complaint” to himself, the other plaintiffs, and the DOC commissioner’s office. The court denied the motion, explaining that “[p]laintiffs need to serve defendants in accordance with the civil rules. The Court System does not and may not participate in serving legal parties.” In June and July 2022, Katchatag attempted to serve some defendants with the complaint, but the court clerk had not yet issued the summons that had to be served with the complaint.1 In August, the court clerk issued a summons and notice of judicial 1 See Alaska R. Civ. P. 4(d)(7)-(8) (providing for service on officer or agency of state “by sending a copy of the summons and the complaint by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of Alaska” and “by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to such officer or agency.”). -2- 2139 assignment for each defendant. There is