Smith, Jr. v. State of Alaska, Courts

CourtDistrict Court, D. Alaska
DecidedJanuary 15, 2025
Docket3:24-cv-00068
StatusUnknown

This text of Smith, Jr. v. State of Alaska, Courts (Smith, Jr. v. State of Alaska, Courts) 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
Smith, Jr. v. State of Alaska, Courts, (D. Alaska 2025).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

KEEN L.A. SMITH, JR. Plaintiff, Case No. 3:24-cv-00068-SLG v. TIMOTHY CRONIN, Defendant.

SECOND SCREENING ORDER On September 5, 2024, self-represented prisoner Keen L.A. Smith, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and a letter addressed to the Clerk of Courts.1 The Court has now screened the FAC in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. Although the scope of review generally is limited to

the contents of the operative complaint,2 the Court also reviewed the enclosed letter. However, it is not the Court’s responsibility to review filings, exhibits, or additional external information to identify possible claims. Instead, all necessary information must be included within the body of the amended complaint itself.3 Regardless, the information contained in the FAC and the letter is insufficient to

allow this case to pass through the screening process.

1 Docket 10. 2 See United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lee v. L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). 3 See Amina v. WMC Finance Co., 329 F.Supp.3d 1141 (2018). Plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient facts that, if proven, would demonstrate that there were criminal charges pressed against him that were terminated favorably.

As stated in the Court’s previous screening order, before a plaintiff may proceed on claims of malicious prosecution or fabrication of evidence, he must show a favorable termination of the underlying criminal case against him.4 In the enclosed letter, Plaintiff claims only that he was charged with “horrible” but unspecified crimes and confined against his will. He does not explain when or why he was arrested, and who arrested him on what charges. The FAC also claims Plaintiff was released from custody on or about February 24, 2022, on these unspecified charges, but states Plaintiff does not know when the charges giving rise to his claims in this case were resolved.5 In short, the FAC does not contain any explanation as what specific charges were brought against Plalintiff nor provide any additional information regarding the outcome of any criminal

prosecution that was brought against him. Specifically, it is unclear which, if any, criminal charges were brought against Plaintff and how those were resolved: by the prosecutor, or by the trial court, if Plaintiff was found not guilty after a jury trial, or following trial if a conviction was overturned on appeal. Similarly, the FAC contains only conclusory allegations that Trooper Cronin

“made false accusations” against Plaintiff in his reports. But his FAC does not

4 Docket 9 at 7-10. 5 Docket 10-1. Case No. 3:24-cv-00068-SLG, Smith v. State of Alaska, et al. delineate when those accusations were made, what those accusations were, and why they were false. The FAC contains a vague reference to a photo line-up but again, fails to present any facts that could support a finding that the line-up violated

Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights. In the letter attached to FAC, Plaintiff did provide a state court case number and the name of the attorney who represented him in the case, and he claims the public defender’s office has a copy of the casefile.6 However, even if the public defender’s case file contains the missing information—or even if the case details

were available on Courtview (which it appears they are not)—it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to gather and plead the necessary facts to support his claims. The Court does not conduct independent research or investigations on behalf of litigants and will not seek out information from any external organizations, such as public defender’s offices. Because Plaintiff has not described the criminal charges

that were brought against him, nor has he explained how those charges were terminated favorably to him, nor has he explained how Trooper Cronin made false accusations against him that resulted in Plaintiff’s arrest, he may not proceed on his claims as pleaded. Therefore, the FAC is DISMISSED for failing to state sufficient facts to support a plausible claim upon which relief may be granted.

A plaintiff's failure to cure a complaint's deficiencies constitutes “a strong indication that the [plaintiff has] no additional facts to plead” and “any attempt to

6 Id. Case No. 3:24-cv-00068-SLG, Smith v. State of Alaska, et al. amend would be futile[.]”7 Indeed, the Court's “discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where[, as here,] the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.”8 However, in the interests of fundamental fairness, Plaintiff is granted

one additional chance to file a second amended complaint to try to fix the deficiencies identified in this order. An amended complaint should not include letters as attachments.9 Instead, the necessary information must be included within the body of the amended complaint itself. Plaintiff may attach to an amended complaint relevant court records and/or police reports that he specifically

references in the amended complaint that he believes support his claims. FILING AN AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff is accorded 60 days from the date of this order to file a Second Amended Complaint. An amended complaint replaces the prior complaint in its entirety.10 An amended complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”11 The Court will not consider additional arguments contained in any letter Plaintiff attaches to an amended

7 Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). See also Salameh v. Tarsadia Hotel, 726 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013) (district court properly denied leave to amend when “the district court gave Plaintiffs specific instructions on how to amend the complaint, and Plaintiffs did not comply.”). 8 San Francisco Herring Ass'n v. Dep't of the Interior, 946 F.3d 564, 582 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990)). 9 Amina v. WMC Finance Co., 329 F.Supp.3d 1141 (2018). 10 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; Local Civil Rule 15.1. 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Case No. 3:24-cv-00068-SLG, Smith v. State of Alaska, et al. complaint, as that is not proper procedure to amend a complaint.12 Any claim not included in the amended complaint will be considered waived. Additionally, an amended complaint need not and should not contain legal research or analysis;

and a plaintiff need not file exhibits or evidence to attempt to prove his case at the pleading stage, although, as noted above, Plaintiff may attach relevant state court charging documents, dismissal orders, and police reports.13 The amended complaint must contain separately numbered, clearly identified claims.

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

Related

United States v. Corinthian Colleges
655 F.3d 984 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Jack Allen v. City of Beverly Hills
911 F.2d 367 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)
Tamer Salameh v. Tarsadia Hotel
726 F.3d 1124 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.
552 F.3d 981 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
San Francisco Herring Ass'n v. Usdoi
946 F.3d 564 (Ninth Circuit, 2019)
Amina v. WMC Fin. Co.
329 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (D. Hawaii, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Smith, Jr. v. State of Alaska, Courts, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-jr-v-state-of-alaska-courts-akd-2025.