Ahnangnatoguk v. Houser

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
AL R. AHNANGNATOGUK,
Petitioner,
v.
EARL HOUSER,
Respondent.
Case No. 2:22-cv-00006-JMK
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On October 21, 2022, Al R. Ahnangnatoguk, a self-represented prisoner,
filed a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
State Custody.1 He has paid the filing fee (receipt # 100019661).
Mr. Ahnangnatoguk initially filed his Petition with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at Case No. 22-70237.2 The Ninth Circuit transferred
Mr. Ahnangnatoguk’s Petition to this Court on November 7, 2022, noting that it was
“unclear whether Ahnangnatoguk is challenging the 2007 revocation of parole or
whether he is challenging his current incarceration for assault in the first degree.”3
In a letter to the Court received on November 16, 2022, Mr. Ahnangnatoguk stated,
“I am challenging the 2007 Dismissed Case (2NO-06-867cr)[.] This case is when
I was incarcerated for 3 years on a dismissed case without Due Process of law by
1 Docket 1.
2 Docket 1.
3 Docket 1 at 1–2. See also Fed. R. App. P. 22(a); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1631, 2241(b).
Case 2:22-cv-00006-JMK Document 6 Filed 02/27/23 Page 1 of 8

Case No. 2:22-cv-00006-JMK, Ahnangnatoguk v. Houser
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 8
the AK State Parole Board.”4 	With his filing, Mr. Ahnangnatoguk attached an
inmate copy of the Notice of Dismissal from the State of Alaska trial court
dismissing 	State 	of 	Alaska 	v. 	Al 	Roby 	Ahnangnatoguk, 	Case 	No. 	2NO-06-
00867CR, on January 18, 2007.5 	There is no record of the underlying criminal
case, Case No. 2NO-06-00867CR, available for viewing under the State of
Alaska’s CourtView public access website.
The Court takes judicial notice6 of Mr. Ahnangnatoguk’s post-conviction
proceedings at Al Roby Ahnangnatoguk v. State of Alaska, Case No. 2NO-07-
00195CI, regarding the underlying criminal case, Case No. 2NO-06-00867CR .
The Court also takes judicial notice of Mr. Ahnangnatoguk’s other criminal and
post-conviction relief cases,7 including Case Nos. 2NO-13-00111CI (2013),8 2NO-
4 Docket 3.
5 Docket 3.
6 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.”
B LACK’S L AW 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.
7 The public record shows several more criminal cases, but these cases are remote in time (1991–
1999). Therefore, the Court does not list them here. See https://records.courts.alaska.gov.
8 Mr. Ahnangnatoguk petitioned for relief after a felony or misdemeanor conviction and sentencing
in superior court. 	The case was dismissed by the Alaska Superior Court. 	There is no readily
available public record of the underlying criminal case number. 	See https://records.courts
.alaska.gov.
Case 2:22-cv-00006-JMK Document 6 Filed 02/27/23 Page 2 of 8

Case No. 2:22-cv-00006-JMK, Ahnangnatoguk v. Houser
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 8
11-00534CR 	(2011),9 	2NO-08-00946CR 	(2008),10 	2NO-08-00225CI 	(2008),11
2NO-08-00082CI (2008),12 2NO-07-00195CI (2008),13 2NO-07-00141CI (2007),14
and 2NO-00-00711CR (2000).15
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
A court must “promptly examine” a habeas petition.16 	“If it plainly appears
from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief
9 Mr. Ahnangnatoguk was convicted after a guilty plea for the indicted charge of Assault 1 –
Serious Injury, Weapon (Class A Felony). See https://records.courts.alaska.gov.
10 Mr. Ahnangnatoguk was convicted after a guilty plea for the charge of Assault in the 4th Degree-
Recklessly Injure (Class A Misdemeanor). See https://records.courts.alaska.gov.
11 Mr. Ahnangnatoguk petitioned for post-conviction relief after felony or misdemeanor conviction
and sentencing in superior court. The case was dismissed by the Alaska Superior Court. There
is no readily available public record of the underlying criminal case. 	See https://records.courts
.alaska.gov.
12 Mr. Ahnangnatoguk petitioned for post-conviction relief after felony or misdemeanor conviction
and sentencing in superior court. The case was dismissed by the Alaska Superior Court. There
is no readily available public record of the underlying criminal case. 	See https://records.courts
.alaska.gov.
13 Mr. Ahnangnatoguk petitioned for post-conviction relief after felony or misdemeanor conviction
and sentencing in superior court. 	The Alaska Superior Court granted the application for post-
conviction relief, the case was reopened, and then dismissed by the Alaska Superior Court. Upon
appeal from the Alaska Court of Appeals at A-10210, the Superior Court issued its Order Upon
Conclusion of Appeal. 	The case was closed on October 26, 2017. 	See https://records.courts
.alaska.gov.
14 Mr. Ahnangnatoguk petitioned for post-conviction relief after felony or misdemeanor conviction
and sentencing in superior court. 	The case was dismissed or withdrawn. 	There is no readily
available public record of the underlying criminal case. See https://records.courts.alaska.gov.
15 Mr. Ahnangnatoguk was convicted after a plea of no contest for Assault – 2nd Degree (Felony
Conversion) and Assault – 3rd 	Degree (Felony Conversion). 	See https://records.courts
.alaska.gov.
16 Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States District Courts.
Case 2:22-cv-00006-JMK Document 6 Filed 02/27/23 Page 3 of 8

Case No. 2:22-cv-00006-JMK, Ahnangnatoguk v. Houser
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 8
in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition.”17 	Upon screening, it
plainly appears that Mr. Ahnangnatoguk is not entitled to habeas relief pursuant to
Section 2254 and his petition must be dismissed.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Ahnangnatoguk alleges that the “State of Alaska Board of Parole
Michael Stark, Parole OFC. Sandra Martinson remanded [him] into custody on
Dec. 1[,] 2006 for 3 yrs. on a dismissed case. 	There was no indictment by a
prosecuting 	authority.” 	In 	his 	petition, 	Mr. 	Ahnangnatoguk 	includes 	several
different case numbers. The first case number he lists is “2NO-500-00711.”18 This
appears 	to 	be 	Mr. 	Ahnangnatoguk’s 	criminal 	case, 	State 	of 	Alaska 	v.
Ahnangnatoguk, at Case No. 2NO-00-00711CR (2000). 	He then lists Case No.
2NO-06-00867CR, which as noted above, appears to have been dismissed in
January 2007.19 	Finally, he lists Appeals Court Case No. A-10210, and the
underlying post-conviction relief at Superior Court Case No. 2NO-07-00195CI
(2008).20
At Docket 1, Mr. Ahnangnatoguk included an inmate copy of an Order
Revoking 	Parole 	on 	February 	3, 	2007 	for 	Case 	No. 	“2NO-S00-00711” 	and
17 Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States District Courts.
18 Docket 1 at 3.
19 Docket 1 at 3, 10.
20 Docket 1 at 5.
Case 2:22-cv-00006-JMK Document 6 Filed 02/27/23 Page 4 of 8

Case No. 2:22-cv-00006-JMK, Ahnangnatoguk v. Houser
Order of Dismissal
Page 5 of 8
continuing his case until April 30, 2007, and an inmate copy of the Alaska Board
of Parole finding and Order Preliminary Revocation/Rescission Hearing dated
December 1, 2006, without a referenced case number.21 	Mr. Ahnangnatoguk is
seeking 	“[i]mmediate 	release 	from 	custody 	from 	AK 	State 	custody 	without
mandatory parole with the compensation of 2 million Dollars per year; x 3 years.”22
A. 	Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
A petitioner must be in custody to challenge his detention.23 	Because
custody is a statutory jurisdictional issue, the Court may only consider a habeas
petition if the petitioner was in custody at the time of the filing of the petition.24 “To
satisfy the custody requirement, petitioner must demonstrate that he is subject to
a significant restraint upon his liberty not shared by the public generally.”25
However, a habeas petitioner does not remain “in custody” under a conviction
“after the sentence imposed for it has fully expired, merely because of the
possibility that the prior conviction will be used to enhance the sentences imposed
for any subsequent crimes of which he is convicted.”26
21 Docket 1 at 21–23.
22 Docket 1 at 18.
23 See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
24 See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490–91 (1989) (per curiam).
25 Dow v. Circuit Court of the First Circuit, 995 F.2d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (internal
quotations and citations omitted).
26 Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492.
Case 2:22-cv-00006-JMK Document 6 Filed 02/27/23 Page 5 of 8

Case No. 2:22-cv-00006-JMK, Ahnangnatoguk v. Houser
Order of Dismissal
Page 6 of 8
Accepting Mr. Ahnangnatoguk’s assertion at Docket 3 that he is bringing his
Section 2254 petition based on State of Alaska Case No. 2NO-06-00867CR, the
Court lacks jurisdiction over this petition because Mr. Ahnangnatoguk is not “in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State Court” for Alaska Case No. 2NO-06-
00867CR as required by Section 2254.27 	Because that case was dismissed in
January 2007 and any confinement, including parole, related to the underlying
criminal case upon which Mr. Ahnangnatoguk is seeking relief, has expired, he is
not “in custody pursuant to” the dismissed Alaska case he is challenging for
purposes of Section 2254.28 	Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to address
Mr. Ahnangnatoguk’s Section 2254 petition as it relates to Alaska Case No. 2NO-
06-00867CR.
B. 	Failure to Exhaust State Court Remedies
Mr. 	Ahnangnatoguk 	specifically 	challenges 	Alaska 	Case 	No. 	2NO-06-
00867CR (2007), but may still be incarcerated due to a parole revocation in Case
No. 	2NO-S00-00711 (2000)29 and has also had subsequent criminal charges as
noted above. 	A prisoner that is in custody based on a state court conviction may
not bring a Section 2254 petition prior to exhausting his state court remedies.30
27 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
28 Wright v. State of Alaska, 47 F.4 th 954, 959 (9th Cir. 2022) (Petitioner was not “in custody” as
the result of his state conviction after completing his sentence and probation.).
29 Mr. Ahnangnatoguk’s attached exhibits include documents from the Alaska Board of Parole
stating his parole was revoked in Case No. 2NO-00-711. Docket 1 at 20–23.
30 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).
Case 2:22-cv-00006-JMK Document 6 Filed 02/27/23 Page 6 of 8

Case No. 2:22-cv-00006-JMK, Ahnangnatoguk v. Houser
Order of Dismissal
Page 7 of 8
Exhaustion of state remedies requires the petitioner to fairly present the federal
claims to the state courts in order to give the state the opportunity to pass upon
and correct any alleged violations of its prisoners' federal rights.31 	To satisfy the
“fairly present” requirement, the petitioner must present his federal claim to “each
appropriate court (including a state supreme court with powers of discretionary
review)” so that the each court is alerted to the federal nature of the claim.32
In Alaska, this means that claims must first be presented to the Alaska
Superior Court. If the petitioner disagrees with that result, the claim must then be
raised to the Alaska Court of Appeals, and if he disagrees with that result, the claim
must be raised in a petition for hearing to the Alaska Supreme Court.33 	This
process also applies to post-conviction proceedings by the Alaska Superior Court
and review of any post-conviction decision by the Alaska Court of Appeals and the
Alaska Supreme Court.34
In the event Mr. Ahnangnatoguk should elect to challenge his current
incarceration, the Court notes that he does not appear to have challenged his other
criminal convictions based upon readily available public information. 	Because
31 Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (per curium).
32 Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (relying on Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365–66.).
33 See O’Sullivan v. Boerkel, 526 U.S. 828, 845. 	In Alaska, a criminal defendant may request
discretionary review by the Alaska Supreme Court. See Alaska Statutes §§ 22.05.010, 22.07.020,
and 22.07.030; Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure 215, 301, and 302.
34 See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c); see also O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 844–45. See generally Alaska R.
Crim. P. 35.1.
Case 2:22-cv-00006-JMK Document 6 Filed 02/27/23 Page 7 of 8

Case No. 2:22-cv-00006-JMK, Ahnangnatoguk v. Houser
Order of Dismissal
Page 8 of 8
Mr. Ahnangnatoguk has not exhausted his state court remedies, his habeas
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cannot proceed at this time in this Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	The Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for
lack of jurisdiction regarding Alaska Superior Court Case No. 2NO-06-
00867CR.
2. 	Before 	bringing 	a 	petition 	regarding 	his 	current 	incarceration,
Mr. Ahnangnatoguk must exhaust his state court remedies.
3. 	Any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
4. 	A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue.35
5. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a Final Judgment and terminate this
action.
DATED this 27th day of February, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred____________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
35 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(d), 2253(c)(2). See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (certificate
of appealability may be granted only if applicant made a “substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right,” i.e., a showing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition
should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further” (internal quotations and citations omitted)).
Case 2:22-cv-00006-JMK Document 6 Filed 02/27/23 Page 8 of 8