purpose of giving fair and reasonable notice to all parties of the appropriate procedural standards that should be uniformly applied when any party, including a pro se litigant, seeks relief in [civil litigation]," and advising that [a) pro se litigant who wants to initiate such an action should familiarize himself or herself with the rules of procedure"). 11 . Breck, 745 P.2d at 75. The Municipality maintains that Genaro did not need the superior court to inform her of the opportunity under Rule 36(b) to move or withdraw her admissions because the Municipality pointed Genaro to Rule 36 in the instructions accompanying its first discovery request and warned her of the consequences of failing to respond. See Willoya v. State, Dep't of Corrections, 53 P.3d 1115, 1123 (Alaska 2002) (<HOLDING>). The instructions did not describe the option
holding that a pro se litigant who is an attorney is not entitled to fees under  1988 holding that at a bare minimum the district court was required to provide a pro se prisoner with fair notice of the summary judgment rule requirements holding attorneys fees not available to pro se attorney litigant in a federal freedom of information act action holding that a litigant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute if the law is unconstitutional as applied to that particular litigant holding that court had no obligation to inform pro se litigant of procedural requirements due to clear evidence in record including inter alia defendants mention of requirements in summary judgment motion that litigant knew requirements