Stoltenberg v. Clark et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
EDWIN ALLEN STOLTENBERG
Plaintiff,
v.
TROY CLARK, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:20-cv-00267-JMK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
Before the Court are 15 motions either ripe for adjudication or pending. The
relevant procedurally history is as follows.
At Docket 52, all Defendants filed a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to
Respond to Complaint, which asked the Court to delay responsive pleadings until
“either 30 days after sentencing and entry of a final judgment in Plaintiff’s [related
federal] criminal proceeding, or 60 days from June 27, 2022.”1 Five days later,
Defendant Securus Technologies, LLC (“Securus”) filed a Motion to Dismiss at
Docket 53 and Request for Judicial Notice with 188 pages of exhibits at Docket 54.
At Docket 58, the Court suspended briefing deadlines on Securus’s Motion to
Dismiss in the interest of judicial economy.
1 Docket 52 at 3.
Case 3:20-cv-00267-JMK Document 91 Filed 03/23/23 Page 1 of 8

3:20-cv-00267-JMK, Stoltenberg v. Clark, et al.
Case Management Order
Page 2 of 8
Subsequently, Mr. Stoltenberg has filed various pretrial motions at
Dockets 60, 61, 64, 65, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 85, and 86, and additional related
documents and supplements at Dockets 66 and 67. Of specific note,
Mr. Stoltenberg filed a Motion to Request Leave to Amend at Docket 71 and
submitted a proposed amended complaint at Docket 74.
Counsel for Defendants United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) entered
an appearance at Dockets 51. Counsel for the individually named federal
Defendants Clark, McGraw, and Vik (“Federal Defendants”) entered an
appearance at Docket 79 and accepted service on behalf of the Federal
Defendants at Docket 80. USMS filed a Motion to Dismiss at Docket 81. The
Federal Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss at Docket 89.
Mr. Stoltenberg’s related federal criminal matter has resolved and he now
resides at FCI Victorville.2 Accordingly, progress in this civil action shall resume.
As a preliminary matter, the Court must address Mr. Stoltenberg’s Motion to
Request Leave to Amend and the proposed amended complaint at Dockets 71
and 74. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) permits amendment by motion
and instructs that a court “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” The
Court reviewed Dockets 71 and 74 and finds it appropriate to grant the requested
2 Docket 84; United States v. Stoltenberg, Case No. 3:18-cr-00109-JMK-MMS-1, see
Dockets 768, 776, & 800.
Case 3:20-cv-00267-JMK Document 91 Filed 03/23/23 Page 2 of 8

3:20-cv-00267-JMK, Stoltenberg v. Clark, et al.
Case Management Order
Page 3 of 8
leave. The Court screened Docket 74 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A and
accepts it as the Third Amended Complaint. In the Ninth Circuit, “an amended
complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-
existent.”3 Accordingly, Docket 74 is the operative complaint in this action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. The Motion to Request Leave to Amend at Docket 71 is GRANTED. The
Clerk of Court is directed to amend the entry at Docket 74 to reflect that it is
the Third Amended Complaint.
2. Defendant Jen Winkelman, Commissioner of Alaska Department of
Corrections, is hereby substituted for Defendant Nancy Dahlstrom.
3. In the Third Amended Complaint, Mr. Stoltenberg names United States
Marshal Services National Registered Agents, Inc as a defendant or
defendants. After close review of the Third Amended Complaint, the Court
interprets this as to be a singular defendant referenced as United States
Marshal Service, Inc.4 The Court takes judicial notice that National
Registered Agents, Inc., is a corporation that offers service of process
3 Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Forsyth
v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Lacey
v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012)).
4 Docket 74 at 7–8, 13.
Case 3:20-cv-00267-JMK Document 91 Filed 03/23/23 Page 3 of 8

3:20-cv-00267-JMK, Stoltenberg v. Clark, et al.
Case Management Order
Page 4 of 8
compliance for business entities.5 No claims or reference to National
Registered Agents, Inc., is found in the Third Amended Complaint, nor are
any factual allegations regarding service of process. However, if National
Registered Agents, Inc., has been plead as “all defendants” and is an
intended defendant, Mr. Stoltenberg must motion the Court requesting the
issuance of an Order Directing Service and Response immediately.
4. With the acceptance of Third Amended Complaint, Defendants’ Joint Motion
for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint at Docket 52; Securus’s
Motion to Dismiss at Docket 53; Mr. Stoltenberg’s Unopposed Motion for
Extension Response to Motion to Dismiss at Docket 61; Mr. Stoltenberg’s
Request for Laptop, Response to Securus’s Motion to Dismiss, Objection to
Securus’s Judicial Notice, Request to Compel for Special Master, Securus
Contract w/AK DOC Void for Fraud, Request for Sanctions for Deleted Calls
at Docket 65; Mr. Stoltenberg’s Request for Injunction/Restraining Order at
Docket 69, Mr. Stoltenberg’s Motion to Provide Dkt. 26, 65, [67] and Copy
of Enclosed Motion filed 10/23/22 at Docket 72; Mr. Stoltenberg’s Motion to
Compel Production of Addresses Under Seal to be Provided for Service by
5 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)
Case 3:20-cv-00267-JMK Document 91 Filed 03/23/23 Page 4 of 8

3:20-cv-00267-JMK, Stoltenberg v. Clark, et al.
Case Management Order
Page 5 of 8
the U.S. Marshal Services at Docket 73; and Mr. Stoltenberg’s Motion to
Stay for 120 Days at Docket 86 are DENIED AS MOOT.
5. The Motion to Request to Send Filings to Court to File ECM on All
Defendants at Docket 60 is GRANTED. Mr. Stoltenberg may file motions or
responses with the Court and have them served electronically on
Defendants. The certificate of service on any motion or response should
read as follows:
I, Edwin Allan Stoltenberg, attest that I have submitted this
[motion/briefing/response] to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Alaska to be served electronically through the CM/ECF system.
/s/________________________
Mr. Stoltenberg is advised that this only applies to motions, briefings, or
responsive filings.
6. Mr. Stoltenberg’s Motion for Clarification and Supplemental to Add
Interrogatories at Docket 64 and the Motion to Compel Interrogatories
w/Response to Complaint at Docket 70 are DENIED AS PREMATURE. For
clarity and efficiency, the parties should not engage in discovery until the
issuance of the Court’s Scheduling Order, which will govern discovery
procedures and deadlines in this action.
7. The Motion to Request Complete Filings from Start to Finish at Docket 85 is
DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. It is a litigant’s responsibility
to keep copies of any filings. The Court finds Mr. Stoltenberg’s request lacks
Case 3:20-cv-00267-JMK Document 91 Filed 03/23/23 Page 5 of 8

3:20-cv-00267-JMK, Stoltenberg v. Clark, et al.
Case Management Order
Page 6 of 8
specificity and is too voluminous to grant outright. Copies of documents that
have been filed with the Court may be obtained from the Clerk’s Office for
$0.50 per page. In the event of special circumstances or serious financial
need, a litigant may file a motion asking for the cost of copies to be waived
or reduced. However, the Court is sympathetic to the loss of many, or all,
of Mr. Stoltenberg’s legal copies due to prisoner transport. Accordingly, the
Clerk of Court shall send Mr. Stoltenberg the following: (1) Third Amended
Complaint at Docket 74; (2) Defendant United States Marshal Service’s
Motion to Dismiss and Declaration at Dockets 81 and 82; (3) Defendants
Vik, Clark, and McGraw’s Motion to Dismiss at Docket 89; and (4) a docket
sheet.
8. The Court sets out the following deadlines:
a. The Third Amended Complaint is considered served upon the parties
effective the date of this Order.
b. Defendant Securus must file a responsive pleading, including but not
limited to a revised Motion to Dismiss, within 21 days of this order.6
6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a); Local Civil Rule 16.1(c)(1) (“Preliminary motions, especially those
raising legal issues that have the potential for reducing necessary discovery, should be
filed at the earliest time possible.”).
Case 3:20-cv-00267-JMK Document 91 Filed 03/23/23 Page 6 of 8

3:20-cv-00267-JMK, Stoltenberg v. Clark, et al.
Case Management Order
Page 7 of 8
c. Defendant Winkelman must file a responsive pleading, including any
applicable motions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)
within 60 days of this order.7
d. Defendant USMS responded to the Third Amended Complaint in a
Motion to Dismiss at Docket 81. The Court accepts this as Defendant
USMS’s responsive pleading. The Court will issue a separate order
regarding briefing schedule and procedure.
e. The Federal Defendants responded to the Third Amended Complaint
in a Motion to Dismiss at Docket 89. The Court accepts this as the
Federal Defendants’ responsive pleading. The Court will issue a
separate order regarding briefing schedule and procedure.
f. In anticipation of responsive pleadings from Defendants Securus and
Winkelman, the Court reminds the parties of following responsive
pleading procedures.
i. A plaintiff should not reply to an answer by a defendant unless
ordered by the Court.8
7 Docket 29 at 2; Local Civil Rule 16.1(c)(1) (“Preliminary motions, especially those raising
legal issues that have the potential for reducing necessary discovery, should be filed at
the earliest time possible.”).
8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(c).
Case 3:20-cv-00267-JMK Document 91 Filed 03/23/23 Page 7 of 8

3:20-cv-00267-JMK, Stoltenberg v. Clark, et al.
Case Management Order
Page 8 of 8
ii. When a motion to dismiss is filed in a civil action with a self-
represented plaintiff, it is this Court’s custom to issue a separate
order setting a briefing scheduling and addressing the relevant
12(b) Rules of Federal Civil Procedure.
DATED this 23rd day of March, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:20-cv-00267-JMK Document 91 Filed 03/23/23 Page 8 of 8