Alaska Supreme Court says a judge may remove a plaintiff from his own trial, after warnings

Alaska trial judges may remove a disruptive party from a civil trial, even the person who filed the lawsuit, as long as the judge warns the party first and weighs that party's interest in being present against courtroom order and the other side's right to a fair trial.

The Alaska Supreme Court set that standard June 5 in Humphrey v. Reges, Opinion No. 7812, deciding for the first time whether removing a disruptive civil litigant is an abuse of discretion, meaning a choice outside the range the law allows a judge.

Dion Humphrey sued his Anchorage neighbors for encroachment, saying a retaining wall crossed onto his lot. He represented himself; so did Robert Reges, one of the neighbors, who is a lawyer.

At trial, Chief Justice Carney wrote, Humphrey "interrupted proceedings, argued with the court, and disregarded the court's explanations and instructions." Superior Court Judge Dani Crosby twice restricted him to videoconference and warned that further interruptions would mean removal. When he kept unmuting himself, she removed him.

Crosby told him he could file a written closing argument and obtain a recording of the rest of the trial, and he later submitted proposed findings of fact. The Supreme Court relied on that, noting his removal "did not foreclose his final opportunity to present arguments to the court."

On appeal Humphrey argued the exclusion violated due process. The court agreed the right to be present is rooted in due process, but held that "[c]ivil litigants have a lesser right to be present at trial than criminal defendants." His conduct "interfered with the Regeses' right to a fair trial," and the superior court was within its authority to exclude him. The superior court found the wall stood entirely within the neighbors' lot, and the justices also upheld Crosby's award of attorney's fees under Civil Rule 82.

The court did not reach Humphrey's other claims, holding he waived them by citing no authority and offering no legal theory. "[E]ven self-represented litigants must provide more than a cursory statement to be considered on appeal," it said.