Blakeley v. Gunderson

• Court: District Court, D. Alaska
• Decided: October 5, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00035
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

BARRY BLAKELEY, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL G. GUNDERSON, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00035-SLG Defendants.

WARNING NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF AND ORDER At Dockets 36 and 37, e Defendants have filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Mr. Blakeley is a self-represented litigant, the Court gives him the following notice.1

WARNING NOTICE TO MR. BLAKELEY: Defendants’ motion seeks judgment on the pleadings in their favor. If granted, their motion will end your case. A motion for judgment on the pleadings can be properly granted if, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true,

1 It is this District’s practice to provide warning notices to all self-represented litigants who face summary judgment or other dispositive motions, even though district courts are only required to provide such notices when a litigant is a self-represented prisoner. See Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364–67 (9th Cir. 1986) (rejecting argument that the enhanced notice rules for pro se prisoners “should be extended to all pro se litigants”); see also Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (“The concern for meaningful access for the pro se litigant provides a basis for the fair notice rule, but it is not sufficient in itself to justify its application.”). there are no disputed material issues of fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.2

You must demonstrate that the facts you allege in your complaint, if true, establish that you are entitled to a legal remedy.3 Defendants’ motion may attack the claims in your complaint either on the ground that they lack a cognizable legal theory, or on the ground that you have not alleged sufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory.4 You must show that your complaint “is plausible on its

face,” which means that you must show that it “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”5 When responding to Defendants’ motion, you may only reference evidence and exhibits that are attached to your complaint or that your complaint incorporates by reference.6

2 Herrera v. Zumiez, Inc., 953 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2020). 3 See Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Analysis under Rule 12(c) is ‘substantially identical’ to analysis under Rule 12(b)(6) because, under both rules, ‘a court must determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint, taken as true, entitle the plaintiff to a legal remedy.’” (quoting Brooks v. Dunlop Mfg. Inc., No. C 10–04341 CRB, 2011 WL 6140912, at *3 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 9, 2011))). 4 See, e.g., Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Dismissal [of a complaint] can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.”). 5 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544, 556, 570 (2007)). 6 See United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A court may, however, consider certain materials—documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice—without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.”). Please note that Local Civil Rule 7.4 requires that unless otherwise ordered, opposition memoranda must not exceed 35 pages or 10,000 words.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff has until on or before 21 days after the date of this order to serve and file on Defendant any opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings at Dockets 36 and 37. 2. Defendants have until 14 days after service of Plaintiff’s opposition to

serve and file a reply.

DATED this 5th day of October, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska. /s/ Sharon L. Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE