Christopher Oktollik and McGarrett John v. Fairbanks Correctional Center

CourtDistrict Court, D. Alaska
DecidedMarch 19, 2026
Docket4:25-cv-00056
StatusUnknown

This text of Christopher Oktollik and McGarrett John v. Fairbanks Correctional Center (Christopher Oktollik and McGarrett John v. Fairbanks Correctional Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Alaska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Christopher Oktollik and McGarrett John v. Fairbanks Correctional Center, (D. Alaska 2026).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

CHRISTOPHER OKTOLLIK and MCGARRETT JOHN, Case No. 4:25-cv-00056-SLG Plaintiffs, v. FAIRBANKS CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendant. SCREENING ORDER On November 12, 2025, self-represented prisoners Christopher James Evan Oktollik and McGarrett John filed a civil complaint and a request for exemption from the payment of the filing fee on a state court form.1 Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that the Fairbanks Correctional Center (“FCC”) is overcrowded and on September 11, 2025 and October 20, 2025, they were housed in a small dorm with six prisoners that was only meant to house four inmates.2 For relief, Plaintiffs seek $750,000 in damages and an order directing Defendants to stop violating their rights.3 Plaintiffs also filed copies of the prison grievance forms that

Plaintiff John submitted to the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) related to his

1 Dockets 1-2. 2 Docket 1 at 5. 3 Docket 1 at 5. overcrowding claims.4 On February 16, 2026, Plaintiff Oktollik filed a motion for court-appointed counsel.5 On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff Oktollik filed a motion requesting to be

severed from this case.6 Because a plaintiff may voluntarily withdraw from a case at this stage without an order from the Court, the motion is effective upon filing.7 Plaintiff Oktollik’s claims are therefore dismissed, and he is terminated from this case. The Court now screens the Complaint as to only Plaintiff John. I. This action is deficient because Plaintiff did not include a fully completed Application to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee on the Court’s form or a statement from his prison trust account for the past six months To properly commence a civil action, a prisoner litigant must file a complaint, a civil cover sheet, and either pay the filing fee and administrative fee, which totals $405.00, or file a completed application to waive prepayment of the filing fee on the District of Alaska’s Form PS10.8 Prisoner litigants must also include a statement from their prison trust account for the past six months.9 Federal law only

4 Docket 1-1. 5 Docket 4. 6 Docket 5. 7 Fed. R. Civ P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 8 Local Civil Rule 3.1. 9 Local Civil Rule 3.1(c)(3).

Case No. 4:25-cv-00056-SLG, John v. Fairbanks Correctional Center allows prisoners to waive prepayment of the fees associated with civil lawsuits.10 Prisoners must pay the filing fee incrementally until paid in full, regardless of the outcome of the action.11 Should Plaintiff proceed with this lawsuit, the Court will

issue a separate order to collect the $350.00 filing fee from Plaintiff’s prisoner trust account. Plaintiff’s motion to waive the filing fee at Docket 2 is DENIED because it is not on the proper form and does not include the prisoner trust account statement. If Plaintiff elects to proceed with this case, then or before the date an amended

complaint is filed, Plaintiff must also file a fully completed and signed Prisoner Application to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee on District of Alaska Form PS10 and attach a copy of the statement for the last six months of Plaintiff’s prisoner trust account. Alternatively, Plaintiff may pay the $350 filing fee and the $55 administrative fee, a total of $405, at this time.

II. Screening Requirement Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a federal district court must screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.12 In this screening, a district court shall dismiss the complaint at any time if the court determines that the complaint:

10 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)-(b). 11 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), (2). 12 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A.

Case No. 4:25-cv-00056-SLG, John v. Fairbanks Correctional Center (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.13

In conducting its screening review, a district court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor.14 However, a court is not required to accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact.15 Although generally, the scope of review is limited to the contents of the complaint, a court may also consider documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters

of judicial notice.16 Such documents that contradict the allegations of a complaint may fatally undermine the complaint's allegations.17 Before a court may dismiss any portion of a complaint, a court must provide a self-represented plaintiff with a statement of the deficiencies in the complaint and

13 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 14 Bernhardt v. L.A. County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003). 15 Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001), amended by 275 F.3d 1187 (2001). 16 United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). 17 Sprewell, 266 F.3d at 988 (noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including . . . details contrary to his claims”).

Case No. 4:25-cv-00056-SLG, John v. Fairbanks Correctional Center an opportunity to file an amended complaint, unless to do so would be futile.18 Futility exists when “the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.”19

III. Plaintiff can only represent his own interests A non-attorney self-represented litigant can represent only his own interests,20 and has “no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.”21 To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert that the rights of other inmates have been violated, the Complaint is deficient. Any amended complaint

must only assert claims of Plaintiff John only. IV. Civil Rights Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) To state a claim for relief under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege plausible facts that, if proven, would establish that (1) the defendant acting under color of state law (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the federal Constitution or

18 Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir.1987) ("Without the benefit of a statement of deficiencies, the pro se litigant will likely repeat previous errors."). 19 Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). 20 28 U.S.C. § 1654. 21 See Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (non-attorney plaintiff may not attempt to pursue claim on behalf of others in a representative capacity); Cato v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Classic
313 U.S. 299 (Supreme Court, 1941)
Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Rhodes v. Chapman
452 U.S. 337 (Supreme Court, 1981)
West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Graham v. Connor
490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Blessing v. Freestone
520 U.S. 329 (Supreme Court, 1997)
Gonzaga University v. Doe
536 U.S. 273 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Jones v. Bock
549 U.S. 199 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Johnson v. Duffy
588 F.2d 740 (Ninth Circuit, 1978)
Gibson v. United States
781 F.2d 1334 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)
Gardner v. Howard
109 F.3d 427 (Eighth Circuit, 1997)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc.
546 F.3d 661 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Morgan v. Morgensen
465 F.3d 1041 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
John Doe v. Regents of the University
891 F.3d 1147 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)
Edward Ray, Jr. v. E. Lara
31 F.4th 692 (Ninth Circuit, 2022)
Cato v. United States
70 F.3d 1103 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors
266 F.3d 979 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Christopher Oktollik and McGarrett John v. Fairbanks Correctional Center, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-oktollik-and-mcgarrett-john-v-fairbanks-correctional-center-akd-2026.