. Id. at 1007 (citing City of Whittier v. Whittier Fuel & Marine Corp., 577 P.2d 216, 223 (Alaska 1978). 40 . Alaska R. Civ. P. 41(a). 41 . Alaska R. Civ. P. 41(b). 42 . Alaska R. Civ. P. 41(e)(1)(A)-(B). 43 . Shiffman v. K, Inc., 657 P.2d 401, 403 (Alaska 1983). 44 . Arbelovsky v. Ebasco Servs., Inc., 922 P.2d 225, 227 (Alaska 1996) (internal citations omitted). 45 . Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v. Salzman, 751 P.2d 489, 492 (Alaska 1988). 46 . Otis Elevator Co., Inc. v. Garber, 820 P.2d 1072, 1074 (Alaska 1991). 47 . For example, Azimi attributed his failure to file timely jury instructions to confusion about the trial process: "I thought maybe the day comes and we're going to talk and ask questions and then we pick the jury." 48 . Collins v. Arctic Builders, 957 P.2d 980, 982 (Alaska 1998) (<HOLDING>). 49 . Civil Rule 41(b) was amended in January
holding that the superior court must inform a pro se litigant of the specific defects in his notice of appeal and give him an opportunity to remedy those defects before dismissal of the litigants claims for want of prosecution and untimeliness holding that pro se litigants should be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings holding that although pro se litigants are entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings pro se litigants must follow procedural rules holding a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond holding that although a pro se litigants pleadings are construed liberally a pro se litigant must still follow the same rules that govern other litigants including the requirement of constructing and supporting arguments with legal authority