Slaikeu v. Deboard

District Court, D. Alaska·Decided May 19, 2025·No. 3:23-cv-00118·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA JONATHAN A. SLAIKEU, et al.,

Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 3:23-cv-00118-SLG

L. DEBOARD, Sgt. Superintendent, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER RE MOTION TO CLARIFY THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S ORDER Before the Court at Docket 20 is Plaintiff Slaikeu’s Motion to Clarify the Ninth Circuit’s Order. The motion is GRANTED as follows: On May 14, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate in this case, which returned jurisdiction to this Court. Mr. Slaikeu may file an amended complaint in this case within 30 days of the date of this order that attempts to state a claim against Spring Creek Correctional Center employees alleging retaliation, access to courts, and prisoner recreation claims when Mr. Slaikeu was housed at Spring Creek Correctional Center. I. Plaintiff may only represent his own interests On May 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address on behalf of himself and three other prisoners.1 The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s motion to add additional prisoner plaintiffs to his complaint and reminded him that he may

1 Docket 21. only represent his own interests.2 The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims on behalf of other prisoners.3 Plaintiff may only bring claims affecting him personally in an amended complaint. II. Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are denied as moot Plaintiff’s claims involve events that allegedly occurred while he was

detained at the Spring Creek Correctional Center (“Spring Creek”).4 He has since been transferred to the Anchorage Correctional Complex West.5 When a prisoner is transferred to another prison, his request for injunctive relief concerning conditions or policies at the prison from which he was transferred is generally considered moot absent evidence of an expectation that he will be

transferred back to the facility where the alleged events occurred. Therefore, Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive and declaratory relief are mooted by his transfer.6 In any amended complaint, Plaintiff must not include claims for injunctive or declaratory relief based on the alleged events at Spring Creek. However, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint to pursue monetary damages if he can plead facts

2 Docket 6 at 3-4 (denying Plaintiff’s motion at Docket 4 requesting to add three additional prisoner plaintiffs and convert the case into a class action). 3 Docket 18 at 1. 4 Docket 1 at 1. 5 Docket 21. 6 Preiser, 422 U.S. at 402–03 (where prisoner challenges conditions of confinement and seeks injunctive relief, transfer to another prison renders request for injunctive relief moot absent evidence of an expectation that prisoner will be transferred back to offending institution); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (prisoner's injunctive relief claim against state prison official is moot following transfer to federal prison). Case No. 3:23-cv-00118-SLG, Slaikeu, et al. v. Deboard, et al. to support a plausible claim. III. Filing an Amended Complaint Plaintiff is granted 60 days to file an amended complaint concerning only his retaliation, access-to-courts, and prisoner recreation claims only. Any claim not included in the amended complaint will be considered waived. A complaint needs

only to allege sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a plausible claim for relief.7 A claim is “plausible” when the facts alleged support a reasonable inference that the plaintiff is entitled to relief from a specific defendant for specific misconduct. An amended complaint must contain separately numbered, clearly identified

claims. If handwritten, it must be legible. Each claim should identify the specific injury that the plaintiff is alleging has occurred, when that injury occurred, where that injury occurred, and who the plaintiff is alleging caused that specific injury. In addition, the allegations of the amended complaint must be set forth in sequentially numbered short paragraphs, with no paragraph number being repeated anywhere

in the complaint.8 Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that “[a] party must state its claims or defenses as numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”

7 Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2). 8 A complaint must consist of continuously numbered paragraphs from beginning to end; do not start each new section with number 1. This allows ease of reference to the various allegations in the complaint and permits the defendants to admit or deny each specific allegation by paragraph. Case No. 3:23-cv-00118-SLG, Slaikeu, et al. v. Deboard, et al. Although Plaintiff is being given an opportunity to file an amended complaint, he must not 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. If the amended complaint is

dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim and this case is closed, it will count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g), which may limit Plaintiff’s ability to bring future cases under Section 1983 in federal court. IV. Plaintiff must pay the filing fee or file an updated application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee Plaintiff’s motion to proceed without prepaying the filing fee9 was denied as moot when the Court dismissed this case as moot.10 Therefore, should Plaintiff elect to file an amended complaint in this case, he must also either pay the filing fee of $405.00, or file a completed application to waive prepayment of the filing fee

with a statement from his prison trust account for the past six months.11 Prisoners must pay the filing fee incrementally until paid in full, regardless of the outcome of the action.12 Should Plaintiff proceed with this lawsuit, the Court will issue a separate order on the collection of the filing fee. V. Plaintiff may only communicate with the Court in writing The undersigned has received reports from Court staff that Plaintiff has

9 Docket 3. 10 Docket 11 at 3. 11 Local Civil Rule 3.1. 12 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)&(2). Case No. 3:23-cv-00118-SLG, Slaikeu, et al. v. Deboard, et al. made repeated and excessive phone calls to the Clerk’s Office. During these calls, Plaintiff has persistently asked questions that clerical staff are not permitted to answer. Further, Plaintiff, on multiple occasions, has raised his voice, used inappropriate and disrespectful language, and demanded frequent updates in each

of his pending cases. Such behavior is unacceptable and undermines the orderly administration of justice. The Court has previously issued written warnings instructing Plaintiff to maintain decorum, act with professionalism, and adhere to standards of conduct consistent with those set forth in the Rules of Professional Conduct.13 Despite these warnings, the volume and nature of Plaintiff’s calls continues to be disruptive,

abusive, and excessive. Therefore, in the interest of protecting court staff and preserving the integrity of court operations, Plaintiff is ordered to cease all telephonic communication with the Clerk’s Office, effective immediately. From the date of this order, Plaintiff must only communicate with the Court in writing. All Court filings requesting relief or requesting that the Court make a

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

Slaikeu v. Deboard, (D. Alaska 2025).

Slaikeu v. Deboard (Slaikeu v. Deboard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related