Slaikeu v. Alaska Dept. of Corrections et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
JONATHAN A. SLAIKEU,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00188-RRB
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On 	August 	23, 	2022, 	Jonathan 	Slaikeu, 	a 	self-represented 	prisoner
(“Plaintiff”), filed a Prisoner’s Complaint under the Civil Rights Act, a civil cover
sheet, an Application to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee, and a Motion to
Appoint Counsel.1 	Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion for Equitable Tolling of
Statute 	of 	Limitations, 	an 	Amended 	Complaint, 	Attachments 	to 	Amended
Complaint, and an additional Amended Complaint.2 	The Court now screens
Plaintiff’s filings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
Federal law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a civil
complaint filed by a self-represented prisoner. 	In this screening, a court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action:
1 Dockets 1-5.
2 Dockets 7, 11, 14, and 14-1.
Case 3:22-cv-00188-RRB Document 15 Filed 02/01/23 Page 1 of 8

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 8
(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.3
To determine whether a complaint states a valid claim for which relief may
be granted, 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.”4 In conducting its review, a court must liberally construe a self-represented
plaintiff’s pleading and give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.5 	Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instructs that a complaint must contain a “short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the [complainant] is entitled to relief.”
A complaint should set out each claim for relief separately. 	Factual allegations
must not be speculative; rather, a plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.”6 While a complaint need not, and should not, contain every
3 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
4 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)).
5 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)).
6 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Case 3:22-cv-00188-RRB Document 15 Filed 02/01/23 Page 2 of 8

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 8
precise, 	factual 	detail, 	“unadorned, 	the 	defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation[s]” are insufficient to state a claim.7
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.8 	Futility exists
when “the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could
not possibly cure the deficiency[.]”9
DISCUSSION
I. 	Complaint
Plaintiff brings a personal injury suit against the Alaska Department of
Corrections (DOC) and four DOC employees.10 	Plaintiff’s explains he was raped
by another inmate on February 26, 2015, and alleges the DOC employees failed
to protect him, subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and retaliated against
him for filing a Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) complaint.11 	Plaintiff also
7 Id.
8 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)).
9 See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986).
10 Dockets 1, 5.
11 Docket 1 at 3–5.
Case 3:22-cv-00188-RRB Document 15 Filed 02/01/23 Page 3 of 8

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 8
alleges DOC employees committed due process and procedural violations during
the PREA investigation.12
Plaintiff previously brought a lawsuit brought in the Alaska Superior Court
based on these same events.13 The Court takes judicial notice14 of Plaintiff’s state
tort action against the Alaska DOC, which was dismissed with prejudice on
March 22, 2017.15
II. 	Statute of Limitations
Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations. In determining
the timeliness of civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”), federal
courts apply the statute of limitations and tolling rules that are applicable to
personal-injury claims in the forum state.16 	The statute of limitations for such
claims in Alaska is two years.17 A statute of limitations can be extended under the
12 Docket 1 at 6. See also Docket 7 at 5. PREA does not create a private cause of action that can
be brought by an individual plaintiff, and therefore Plaintiff’s claims alleging violations of PREA fail
to state a claim for relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 15607(e) (explicitly directing the Attorney General to
enforce compliance with the PREA); see also Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 286 (explaining that absent
Congressional intent “to create not just a private right but also a private remedy . . . no private
right of action exists.”).
13 Docket 6 at 1.
14 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 Fed. R. Evid. 201; 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).
15 Slaikeu v. State of Alaska Department of Corrections, Case No. 3AN-15-10927CI.
16 Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 1999).
17 Alaska Stat. § 09.10.070(a). See also Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 306 P.3d 1264,
1273 n.18 (Alaska 2013) (“AS 09.10.070 is a residual statute of limitations in that it governs all
Case 3:22-cv-00188-RRB Document 15 Filed 02/01/23 Page 4 of 8

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 5 of 8
“discovery rule,” which tolls a statute of limitations “[w]here an element of a cause
of action is not immediately apparent.”18 Alaska law also allows for equitable tolling
if the plaintiff is incompetent by reason of mental illness or mental disability at the
time the cause of action accrues.19
Plaintiff’s statute of limitations began on the date of the alleged injury, on
February 26, 2015.20 	Plaintiff alleges he has struggled with mental health since
he was a teenager,21 has ongoing “trauma, emotional mental, physical pain” from
the incidents,22 and asserts “inmates pay[ ] people to get at [him] and the COs
allow it.”23 	While the Court sympathizes with Plaintiff’s concerns regarding his
mental health and trauma, the “general test” for mental incompetency is “whether
a person could know or understand his legal rights sufficiently well to manage his
claims for personal injury not arising on contract and not specifically provided otherwise.”) (internal
citations and quotations omitted); Silverton v. Marler, 389 P.2d 3, 5 (Alaska 1964) (“A tort action
must be commenced within two years . . . .” (citing Alaska Stat. § 09.10.070)).
18 Gefre v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, 306 P.3d 1264, 1273 (Alaska 2013).
19 Alaska Stat. § 09.10.140(a).
20 Yurioff v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 803 P.2d 386, 388 (Alaska 1990) (“A cause of action accrues
when a party knows or should know that he has a claim. Ordinarily, this is the date on which the
injury occurs.”).
21 Docket 6.
22 Docket 7 at 5.
23 Docket 1 at 8.
Case 3:22-cv-00188-RRB Document 15 Filed 02/01/23 Page 5 of 8

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 6 of 8
personal affairs.”24 This test does not measure “whether a litigant did understand
his or her legal rights, but whether he or she is capable of understanding them.”25
Plaintiff does not provide sufficient facts to suggest any subsequent civil
rights violations nor any new information that has since come to light regarding the
February 2015 events that are the basis of his action. 	Plaintiff therefore knew or
should have known about the underlying facts for any possible complaint by
February 2017. Additionally, Plaintiff has filed grievances with DOC staff and filed
a state tort action based on these same allegations. These actions 	demonstrate
Plaintiff understood—or at least was capable of understanding—his legal rights.
The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments insufficient to justify tolling. 	Consequently,
Plaintiff’s claims fall well outside the statute of limitations and are time-barred.
III. 	Res Judicata
Even if Plaintiff’s claim was subject to a longer statutory period, given the
final disposition of Plaintiff’s state action, the doctrine of res judicata applies to this
case and requires its dismissal. The doctrine of res judicata, also known as claim
preclusion, provides that a final judgment on the merits bars further claims by
parties or their privies based on the same cause of action or issues that were or
could have been raised in that action.26 	The Ninth Circuit has explained the
24 Cikan v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 125 P.3d 335, 340 (Alaska 2005).
25 Hernandez–Robaina v. State, 849 P.2d 783, 785 (Alaska 1993).
26 Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
Case 3:22-cv-00188-RRB Document 15 Filed 02/01/23 Page 6 of 8

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 7 of 8
doctrine of res judicata applies when “the earlier suit . . . (1) involved the same
‘claim’ or cause of action as the later suit, (2) reached a final judgment on the
merits, and (3) involved identical parties or privies.”27
Pursuant to “the Full Faith and Credit Act, federal courts must give state
judicial proceedings ‘the same full faith and credit . . . as they have by law or usage
in the courts of [the] State . . . from which they are taken.’”28 Accordingly, federal
courts must “apply the res judicata rules of a particular state to judgments issued
by courts of that state.”29 Therefore, in this case, the Court must apply Alaska law
in determining whether the state court’s judgment should be given preclusive
effect. Under Alaska law, res judicata covers relevant claims that could have been
raised in the prior case but were not.30
By Plaintiff’s own admission, this federal action involves the same claims
that were dismissed in his state action against the Alaska.31 A stipulated dismissal
with prejudice generally constitutes a final judgment on the merits.32 	Therefore,
the claims included in his state tort case and any claims that could have been
27 Sidhu v. Flecto Co., 279 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2002).
28 Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 322 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1738).
29 Id.
30 Hiser v. Franklin, 94 F.3d 1287 (9th Cir. 1996). See also Wilson v. Municipality of Anchorage,
977 P.2d 713, 726 (Alaska 1999); Jackinsky v. Jackinsky, 894 P.2d 650, 654 (Alaska 1995).
31 Docket 6 at 1.
32 Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005).
Case 3:22-cv-00188-RRB Document 15 Filed 02/01/23 Page 7 of 8

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 8 of 8
raised are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Accordingly, this action must be
dismissed with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Self-represented litigants generally are entitled to notice of a complaint’s
deficiencies 	and 	an 	opportunity 	to 	amend 	prior 	to 	the 	dismissal 	of 	an
action.33 	However, Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations
and 	the 	doctrine 	of 	res 	judicata 	and 	are 	not 	capable 	of 	being 	cured 	by
amendment.34 Therefore, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
This dismissal counts as a “strike” against Plaintiff under § 1915(g). 	After
three strikes, Plaintiff will be unable to file lawsuits under in forma pauperis status,
unless he demonstrates “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”35
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2. 	All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
3. 	This dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
4. 	The Clerk of Court shall issue a final judgement.
DATED this 1st day of February, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
33 Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).
34 Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130–31.
35 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Case 3:22-cv-00188-RRB Document 15 Filed 02/01/23 Page 8 of 8