excessive force claim in Alaska

2021“Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading ar[i]se[s] out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.”14 “Claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence if there is a ‘ “logical relationship” between the claims.’ ”15 The original complaint must give “fair notice of the general fact situation out of which the claim arises” so that “the defendant will not be deprived of any protection which the state statute of limitations was 11 Baker v. Du

2021“Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading ar[i]se[s] out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.”14 “Claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence if there is a ‘ “logical relationship” between the claims.’ ”15 The original complaint must give “fair notice of the general fact situation out of which the claim arises” so that “the defendant will not be deprived of any protection which the state statute of limitations was 11 Baker v. Du

2021“Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading ar[i]se[s] out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.”14 “Claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence if there is a ‘ “logical relationship” between the claims.’ ”15 The original complaint must give “fair notice of the general fact situation out of which the claim arises” so that “the defendant will not be deprived of any protection which the state statute of limitations was 11 Baker v. Du

2013J.N. v. Virg-In, 258 P.3d 795, 802 (Alaska 2011).

2012Eidelson v. Archer, 645 P.2d 171, 176 (Alaska 1982) (internal citations omitted). .

2012See, eg., State v. Jacob, 214 P.3d 353, 362 (Alaska 2009) (observing, in an appeal of an attorney's fees award, that "[the superior court did not articulate this rationale for relying on factor (F), but we believe it is clear that the record supports reliance on this factor"); Maness v. Daily, 184 P.3d 1, 7 (Alaska 2008) (holding that the dismissal of an excessive-force claim could be affirmed on grounds not relied on by the superior court). .

2012See, eg., State v. Jacob, 214 P.3d 353, 362 (Alaska 2009) (observing, in an appeal of an attorney's fees award, that "[the superior court did not articulate this rationale for relying on factor (F), but we believe it is clear that the record supports reliance on this factor"); Maness v. Daily, 184 P.3d 1, 7 (Alaska 2008) (holding that the dismissal of an excessive-force claim could be affirmed on grounds not relied on by the superior court). .

2011McDonald v. Haskins, 966 F.2d 292, 293-95 (7th Cir.1992) (elaborating that the fact that the boy was not under arrest, that the officer threatened to pull the gun's trigger, and that the boy was "only nine years old," were "the very ingredients relevant to an excessive force inquiry" and concluding that "[i]t should have been obvious to {the officer] that his threat of deadly force ... was objectively unreasonable given ... the fact that the victim, a child, was neither a suspect nor attempting to evade the officers or posing any other threat."). 63 .

2000See Katz v. United States, 194 F.3d 962, 968 (9th Cir.1999) ("[Thhe inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for the use of excessive force is the same as the inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim.") (quoting Alexander v. County of Los Angeles, 64 F.3d 1315, 1322 (9th Cir.1995)). 20 .

2000See Katz v. United States, 194 F.3d 962, 968 (9th Cir.1999) ("[Thhe inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for the use of excessive force is the same as the inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim.") (quoting Alexander v. County of Los Angeles, 64 F.3d 1315, 1322 (9th Cir.1995)). 20 .