Blair v. Leaders et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
CIM JOEL BLAIR,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOT LEADERS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00084-RRB
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On 	April 	13, 	2020, 	self-represented 	prisoner, 	Cim 	Joel 	Blair, 	filed 	a
Prisoner’s Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. [§] 1983, along with a
Prisoner’s Declaration and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.1 On May 1,
2020, Mr. Blair filed a Motion for Clarification and Instruction.
Mr. Blair’s complaint alleges civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
stemming from his state court criminal case.2 	The Complaint names District
1 Dockets 1–2.
2 See Docket 1. The Court takes judicial notice of Mr. Blair’s criminal case State of Alaska
v. Cim Joel Blair, Case No. 3HO-16-00188CR. Mr. Blair has appealed the judgment from
Case No. 3HO-16-00188CR at Cim Joel Blair v. State of Alaska, Case No. A-13186.
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, (11th ed. 2019); see also Headwaters Inc. v. U.S.
Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Materials from a proceeding in
another tribunal are appropriate for judicial notice.”) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201.
Case 3:20-cv-00084-RRB Document 6 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 7

Case No. 3:20-cv-00084-RRB, Blair v. Leaders, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 7
Attorney Scot Leaders and four correctional officers at Wildwood Correctional
Center, all in their individual capacities.3
The Complaint alleges that corrections officers seized legal documents
Mr. Blair had delivered to another prisoner.4 	Mr. Blair alleges that he was acting
as counsel for his own criminal proceeding and attempting to subpoena a witness.
Mr. Blair alleges that he should have had the legal documents returned to him, but
that multiple levels of correctional staff and leadership ignored or denied his
requests. 	Additionally, Mr. Blair alleges that the interference by correctional staff
amounts to witness tampering. 	He further alleges that “[a]ll motions I filed in the
Kenai 	court 	for 	extensions, 	continuances, 	etc., 	were 	denied 	for 	lack 	of
documentary evidence or contemporary test[i]mony.”5 	Mr. Blair alleges that this
resulted in a violation of his right to access the courts.
Additionally, Mr. Blair alleges that he filed motions for continuances related
to the newly found witness in his criminal case. Mr. Blair asked Defendant Leaders
“what I should do about his incidence of witness tampering and interference with
due process, and his reply was that I should call the state troopers.”6 	Mr. Blair
requested counsel “[to] help sort out all of these complicated legal matters and to
3 Docket 1 at 1–2.
4 Id. at 2–3.
5 Id. at 4.
6 Id.
Case 3:20-cv-00084-RRB Document 6 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 7

Case No. 3:20-cv-00084-RRB, Blair v. Leaders, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 7
provide some distance between myself and correctional administration in matters
that directly involved the performance of their duties.”7 	Mr. Blair alleges that his
request for counsel was wrongly denied and that he was without counsel for critical
court proceedings in May 2018. Mr. Blair alleges that this amounted to a violation
of his right to due process.
For 	relief, 	Mr. 	Blair 	requests 	(1) 	damages 	of 	$50,000.00 	from 	each
correctional 	officer 	defendant; 	(2) 	punitive 	damages 	of 	$100,000.00 	from
Defendant Leaders; (3) an order “requiring defendant(s) to cease interfering with
inmates [sic] legal proceedings, legal mail, or access to the courts”; and (4) a
written apology from the Department of Corrections.8
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
Federal law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a civil
complaint filed by a self-represented prisoner seeking a waiver of the prepayment
of the filing fee. In this screening, a court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that the action:
(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.9
7 Id. at 5.
8 Id. at 6.
9 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b).
Case 3:20-cv-00084-RRB Document 6 Filed 05/14/20 Page 3 of 7

Case No. 3:20-cv-00084-RRB, Blair v. Leaders, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 7
To determine whether a complaint states a valid claim for relief, courts consider
whether the complaint contains sufficient factual matter that, if accepted as true,
“state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”10 In conducting its review, a
court must liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff’s pleading and give the
plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.11 	Before a court may dismiss any portion of a
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court
must provide the plaintiff with a statement of the deficiencies in the complaint and
an opportunity to amend or otherwise address the problems, unless to do so would
be futile.12
DISCUSSION
Mr. Blair alleges that his rights to access the courts and to due process
where violated during the court state court criminal case, State of Alaska v. Cim
Joel Blair, Case No. 3HO-16-00188CR. Civil rights claims that collaterally attack or
undermine 	a 	prisoner’s 	conviction 	may 	not 	be 	litigated 	until 	the 	underlying
conviction has been vacated. 	Accordingly, Mr. Blair’s claims are not ripe for
10 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In making this determination, a court may consider “materials that
are submitted with and attached to the Complaint.” 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)).
11 See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d
1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)).
12 See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Albrecht v.
Lund, 845 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir. 1988)).
Case 3:20-cv-00084-RRB Document 6 Filed 05/14/20 Page 4 of 7

Case No. 3:20-cv-00084-RRB, Blair v. Leaders, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 5 of 7
consideration by this Court. Therefore, Mr. Blair’s case must be dismissed without
prejudice.
I. 	All Claims are Barred by Heck v. Humphrey
A prisoner may not bring a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that
collaterally attacks his state court conviction. 	Where a § 1983 action alleges
constitutional violations that would necessarily question or concern the validity of
a state court conviction or sentence, the prisoner must establish that the underlying
sentence 	or 	conviction 	has 	been 	“reversed 	on 	direct 	appeal, 	expunged 	by
executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such
determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus.”13 	This rule applies regardless of whether the prisoner seeks
damages or injunctive relief or who the target of the suit is, “if success in that action
would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.”14
Mr. Blair’s conviction remains in effect at this time.15 All of his claims in this
case allege constitutional violations that question the validity of that conviction.
Therefore, all of Mr. Blair’s claims must be dismissed for failure to state a claim for
13 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).
14 Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81–82 (2005).
15 Supra note 2.
Case 3:20-cv-00084-RRB Document 6 Filed 05/14/20 Page 5 of 7

Case No. 3:20-cv-00084-RRB, Blair v. Leaders, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 6 of 7
relief at this time. 	Mr. Blair may refile his claims in the event his state court
conviction is vacated, expunged, or overturned by an appropriate authority.16
CONCLUSION
Mr. Blair’s claims are barred by the termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey
and are not ripe for consideration at this time. 	Therefore, the case must be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 	Mr. Blair may refile his claims once his conviction is vacated by an
appropriate authority.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
3. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, by Miscellaneous General Order 20-
11, the District of Alaska imposed a stay on all civil matters, effective
March 30, 2020. 	As the presiding judge in this matter, the undersigned
vacates the stay in this case to allow entry of judgment, taxing of costs,
and post-judgment motions. See MGO 20-11 at 6–7; see also MGO 20-
16 The Court notes that even if Mr. Blair does refile his claims after the overturning of his
conviction, many of his claims may be barred from suit or be meritless. The claims against
Defendant Leaders likely are barred due to prosecutorial immunity. Imbler v. Pachtman,
424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976) (upholding the principle that prosecutorial immunity protects
government attorneys when acting as advocates for the state and performing duties
“intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”).
Case 3:20-cv-00084-RRB Document 6 Filed 05/14/20 Page 6 of 7

Case No. 3:20-cv-00084-RRB, Blair v. Leaders, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 7 of 7
13 at 6–7 (extending the civil stay through June 1). However, the parties
may move or stipulate to extend any filing deadlines.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment.
DATED this 14th day of May, 2020 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
Case 3:20-cv-00084-RRB Document 6 Filed 05/14/20 Page 7 of 7