Fredericks v. BOP et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
KALEEM TIKORI FREDERICKS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BOP, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:21-cv-00169-TMB
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Kaleem Tikori Fredericks, representing himself from the United States
Penitentiary in Thomson, Illinois, filed a document with the Court “seeking to file a
civil complaint & civil lawsuit (pro se) against the BOP and Administrative United
States Penitentiary – Thomson (AUSP Thomson) including Disciplinary Hearing
Officer Ms. Fletcher, Correctional Officer Pendley, Correctional Officer Walls &
Correctional Officer Nolting.”1 Mr. Fredericks claims that, in Thomson, Illinois, “[a]ll
of the aforementioned have repeatedly treated [him] with a malicious demeanor,
with negligence & indifference accompanying their actions (or in this case their
lack of action).”2 He claims that he is locked up 23 hours per day in a cell without
running water; was forced to drink out of the toilet; had his meals withheld; was
1 Docket 1 at 1.
2 Id.
Case 3:21-cv-00169-TMB Document 2 Filed 08/19/21 Page 1 of 6

Case 3:21-cv-00169-TMB, Fredericks v. BOP, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 6
falsely accused of wrongdoing by corrupt officers; was falsely labeled as a sex
offender; lost privileges; and was charged with excessive fines.3 	Mr. Fredericks
wishes to transfer to another institution. 4
The Court takes judicial notice5 that Mr. Fredericks was sentenced to 130
months of incarceration by this Court in a judgment dated April 23, 2018.6 	He is
now incarcerated in Thomson, Illinois.7
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
Federal law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a civil
complaint filed by a plaintiff who seeks to waive prepayment of the filing fee. 	In
this screening, the Court shall dismiss the case if it determines that the action--
(i) 	is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) 	fails 	to 	state 	a 	claim 	on 	which 	relief 	may 	be
granted; or
3 Id. at 1-2.
4 Id. at 3.
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. . ..” Black’s Law Dictionary
(11th ed. 2019); see also Foster Poultry Farms v. Alkar-Rapidpak-MP Equip., Inc., 868 F.
Supp. 2d 983, 990 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (“Courts routinely take judicial notice of publicly
available records . . . from other court proceedings.”) (citing Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. South
Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 498 F.3d 1031, 1039 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007) (additional
citation omitted)); Fed. R. Evid. 201.
6 United States v. Kaleem Tikori Fredericks, 3:16-cr-00114-TMB-1, Docket 106.
7 See https://www.bop.gov/mobile/find_inmate/byname.jsp#inmate_results.
Case 3:21-cv-00169-TMB Document 2 Filed 08/19/21 Page 2 of 6

Case 3:21-cv-00169-TMB, Fredericks v. BOP, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 6
(iii) 	seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.8
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.”9 	In conducting its
review, a court must liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff’s pleading and
give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.10 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.11
DISCUSSION
Personal 	jurisdiction 	is 	“[a] 	court’s 	power 	to 	bring 	a 	person 	into 	its
adjudicative process.”12 Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, personal jurisdiction
8 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
9 	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)).
10 	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)).
11 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)).
12 Black’s Law Dictionary (11 th ed. 2019).
Case 3:21-cv-00169-TMB Document 2 Filed 08/19/21 Page 3 of 6

Case 3:21-cv-00169-TMB, Fredericks v. BOP, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 6
may be established over a defendant who is “subject to the jurisdiction of a court
of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located.”13 	If the
defendant is located out-of-state, the United States Constitution requires that a
defendant must have a minimum level of contacts with the state in which the
federal court is located in order for that court to be authorized to hear the case.14
A plaintiff must show that an out-of-state defendant had sufficient minimum
contacts with and in Alaska necessary as not to offend the “traditional notices of
fair play and substantial justice.”15
This Court has no personal jurisdiction over BOP employees working at the
United States Penitentiary in Thomson, Illinois, and because all of Mr. Fredericks’
claims occurred in Thomson, Illinois, venue is inappropriate in this Court.16 Thus,
the Court cannot decide a case such as Mr. Fredericks wishes to file.
13 Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 4(k)(1)(A).
14 Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
15 Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 	Alaska’s
long-arm statute, AS 09.05.015(c), “authorizes Alaska’s courts ‘to assert jurisdiction to
the maximum extent permitted by due process.’” 	Polar Supply Co., Inc. v. Steelmaster
Industries, Inc., 127 P.3d 54, 56 (Alaska 2005) (citations omitted). “As the United States
Supreme Court explained in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, due process requires
that a defendant have ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state such that maintaining a
suit in the forum state ‘does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.’” In re Fields, 219 P.3d 995, 1008 (Alaska 2009) (quoting International Shoe, 326
U.S. at 316).
16 See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Case 3:21-cv-00169-TMB Document 2 Filed 08/19/21 Page 4 of 6

Case 3:21-cv-00169-TMB, Fredericks v. BOP, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 5 of 6
Furthermore, Mr. Fredericks must file a complaint, and either pay the filing
fee or file an application to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, if he seeks
to bring a federal court action. Mr. Fredericks must file an appropriate civil action
in a court with personal jurisdiction over those against whom he seeks to bring
claims for relief. 	The Court will, therefore, send Mr. Fredericks forms appropriate
for filing an action in federal court in Illinois for the violation of his federal
constitutional rights.
Once Mr. Fredericks initiates a federal case, the appropriate court will
screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), as described above.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of a civil case in an
appropriate jurisdiction.
2. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to send Mr. Fredericks a Complaint under the
Constitution,17 with instructions,18 and an Application to Proceed Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs / Financial Affidavit (Prisoner Cases),19 from the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, upon which
17 https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_online/1983EDForm092007.pdf
18 https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_online/1983PrisonerInstructionsForFilingAComplaint.pdf
19 https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_online/form.pdf
Case 3:21-cv-00169-TMB Document 2 Filed 08/19/21 Page 5 of 6

Case 3:21-cv-00169-TMB, Fredericks v. BOP, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 6 of 6
Mr. Fredericks may initiate a civil case in the appropriate federal district
court.
3. 	The Clerk of Court shall enter a Judgment accordingly.
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska this 19th day of August, 2021.
/s/ Timothy M. Burgess
TIMOTHY M. BURGESS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:21-cv-00169-TMB Document 2 Filed 08/19/21 Page 6 of 6