James v. Dial

CourtDistrict Court, D. Alaska
DecidedFebruary 11, 2025
Docket3:24-cv-00221
StatusUnknown

This text of James v. Dial (James v. Dial) 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
James v. Dial, (D. Alaska 2025).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

PAUL R. JAMES, JR., Plaintiff, Case No. 3:24-cv-00221-SLG v. SERGEANT DIAL, SERGEANT RIDGE, and OFFICER MAHNKE, Defendants. ORDER RE COMPLAINT DEFICIENCY

On October 11, 2024, self-represented prisoner Paul R. James, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed a civil complaint, a civil cover sheet, and an application to waive prepayment of the filing fee.1 Plaintiff claims Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment on or about August 4, 2024, and September 23, 2024, by refusing to move him to another cell even though his cellmate was threatening him. He also claims he is being retaliated

against for filing Requests for Information (“RFIs”) and for stating he intends to file a civil lawsuit. For relief, Plaintiff seeks $100,000 in damages and $150,000 in punitive damages.2

1 Dockets 1-3. 2 Docket 1 at 8. Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court takes judicial notice of the Courtview records of the Alaska Trial Courts.3 The Court also takes judicial notice4 of Plaintiff’s other cases filed in this court, James v. Corragein,

et al.,5 James v. Case, et al.,6 James v. Official's Bethel Jail, et al.,7 and James v. State of Alaska,8 James v. Goose Creek Correctional Center & DOC,9 James v. Mun, et al.,10 and James v. Wuya, et al.11

3 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept such a fact.” Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024); See also United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (“We may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted.). 4 A court can take judicial notice of its own files and records. Fed. R. Evid. 201. 5 Case No. 3:19-cv-198-RRB, Docket 7 (dismissed because defendants are immune from suit, and his claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey). 6 Case No. 3:16-cv-126-RRB, Docket 3 at 4 (dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). 7 Case No. 3:22-cv-269-JMK, Docket 8 (dismissed for failure to state a claim with notice of strike). 8 Case No. 3:22-cv-246-JMK, Docket 5 (dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and because named defendant immune from suit). 9 Case No. 3:23-cv-00156-SLG, Docket 5 (voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff after the Court notified him of its intent to dismiss for violating Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and naming state entities that are immune from suit as defendants). 10 Case No. 3:24-cv-00092-SLG, Dockets 6-7, 10 (voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff after the Court issued a screening order dismissing the Complaint for failing to state a claim for which relief may be granted). 11 Case No. 3:24-cv-00170-SLG, Dockets 7-9 (voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff after the Court issued a screening order dismissing the Complaint for failing to state a claim for which relief may be granted). Case No. 3:24-cv-00221-SLG, James v. Dial, et al. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that in any pleading filed with the Court, the attorney or unrepresented party filing the document “certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge” “the factual contentions have

evidentiary support.” On page 6 of Mr. James’s Complaint, he checked “no” in response to the question, “Have you filed an action in federal court that was dismissed because it was determined to be frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted?” On page 7 of the Complaint, he did not identify any case that this Court has dismissed for failure to state a claim. And

on page 9 of the Complaint, Mr. James signed a declaration “under penalty of perjury” that “all of the information contained in the complaint is true and correct.”12 Mr. James has been notified in two of his cases filed in this Court that the case was dismissed for failure to state a claim, Case No. 3:22-cv-00269 and Case No. 3:22-cv-00246, but he did not check the correct box on page 6 nor did he

identify either case on page 7 of his Complaint filed in this case. Therefore, the Complaint is DISMISSED. However, Mr. James may file an amended complaint that corrects his response to question 3 on page 6 of the Complaint and identifies each case that has been dismissed for failure to state a claim on page 7. Plaintiff is accorded 60 days to file an amended complaint that corrects this deficiency in

the Complaint.

12 Perjury is a Class B felony under Alaska law and carries a maximum term of imprisonment of up to 10 years. Alaska Stat. §11.56.200. Case No. 3:24-cv-00221-SLG, James v. Dial, et al. Although Plaintiff is being given an opportunity to file an amended complaint, he shall not unjustifiably expand the scope of the case by alleging new unrelated parties or claims. An amended complaint must not include any claims or

defendants for which Plaintiff lacks a sufficient legal or factual basis. The Three Strikes Rule The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that a self-represented prisoner receive a “strike” when a case he has filed in federal court is dismissed “as frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[.]”13 The

“three strikes” provision was “designed to filter out the bad claims and facilitate consideration of the good.”14 Once a prisoner-plaintiff has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited from bringing any other cases in federal court without prepaying the full filing fee unless he makes “plausible allegations” that he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time of filing his complaint.15

Imminent danger requires an allegation that a harm is “ready to take place” or “hanging threateningly over one's head.”16 It cannot be triggered solely by complaints of past injury or generalized fears of possible future harm.17 In addition

13 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(g). 14 Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007). 15 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 16 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (cleaned up). 17 Id. at 1053 (“The exception's use of the present tense, combined with its concern only with the initial act of ‘bring[ing]’ the lawsuit, indicates to us that the exception applies if the danger existed at the time the prisoner filed the complaint.”). Case No. 3:24-cv-00221-SLG, James v. Dial, et al. to being “imminent,” the alleged danger must also be “both fairly traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in [the] complaint and redressable by the court.”18 Mr.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
James v. Dial, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-dial-akd-2025.