Daniel Denardo v. Peter Michalski

The court is asked to determine whether the superior court correctly concluded that Judge Michalski was protected from liability
for damages based on the doctrine of judicial immunity and whether summary judgment was properly entered in favor of the state's
attorney regarding Daniel DeNardo's claim of abuse of process. In a prior proceeding, judgment was entered against Daniel
DeNardo, and he was ordered to pay attorney's fees to the state. When DeNardo failed to pay, he was summoned to court by attorney
Marc June on behalf of the state for a judgment debtor's examination. 1 Judge Peter Michalski presided over the hearing.
DeNardo moved to have Michalski recused based on AS 22.020.020(a)(5) because Michalski had been chief of the state's Office
of Special Prosecutions and Appeals and, according to DeNardo, had litigated appeals against DeNardo within two years prior
to the judgment debtor hearing. 2 His motion was denied. In response to questioning concerning his financial status at the hearing on the merits, DeNardo asserted his Fifth Amendment
privilege and claims to have pled inability to perform. When he was warned that continued refusal to answer would subject
him to civil contempt, DeNardo requested a jury trial, which he did not receive. After being found in civil contempt on June
10, 1986, he was incarcerated. On September 15, 1986, DeNardo was given another opportunity to respond to questions regarding
his finances. He again requested a jury trial and refused to answer, and was returned to the Sixth Avenue Annex. Judge Michalski
ordered his release on December 10, 1986.