Haapaniemi v. Anchorage Daily News et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
BJORN ERIK HAAPANIEMI,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00143-SLG
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Self-represented prisoner Bjorn Erik Haapaniemi1 (“Plaintiff”) initiated this
action on June 9, 2022.2 At that time, Plaintiff was residing at a Federal
Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in Anthony, Texas.3 The Court screened Plaintiff’s
Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), found the Complaint
deficient but granted leave to amend.4 Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.5 The
Court now screens Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff has also filed several additional documents with titles such
as “Notice” or “Motion.” These filings are addressed separately in this order.
However, the Court will not consider any additional allegations contained in those
1 Plaintiff changed his name from Peter Lee Norris to Bjorn Erik Haapaniemi on June 19, 2020.
Docket 1-1.
2 Docket 1.
3 Docket 1 at 1. Plaintiff also provided a P.O. Box in Anthony, New Mexico in his return address.
4 Docket 11.
5 Docket 13.
Case 3:22-cv-00143-SLG Document 28 Filed 02/10/23 Page 1 of 9

Case No. 3:22-cv-00143-SLG, Haapaniemi v. Anchorage Daily News, et al.
Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction
Page 2 of 9
filings, as they are not a proper way to amend a complaint.6
DISCUSSION
As in his initial Complaint, the Amended Complaint brings allegations of libel,
slander, and malicious intent against Defendants. The Court’s initial Screening
Order found the Complaint failed to demonstrate proper jurisdiction and failed to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.7
As was explained in the Court’s initial Screening Order, jurisdiction is “[a]
court's power to decide a case or issue a decree.”8 The Amended Complaint only
asserts claims arising under Alaska state law. Plaintiff makes no allegations or
claims under the United States Constitution or federal statutes. Accordingly, the
Court does not have federal question jurisdiction.
The Amended Complaint maintains the Court has diversity jurisdiction over
this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because Plaintiff alleges that he is
currently a resident of the State of California, that Defendants are citizens of
Alaska, and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.9 The party asserting
diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that there is diversity of
citizenship.10 And the rule is well established “that subject-matter jurisdiction in
6 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see also Local Civil Rule 15.1.
7 Docket 11 at 3.
8 Docket 11 at 8 (citing BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, (11th ed. 2019)).
9 Docket 13.
10 Lew v. Moss, 79 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986).
Case 3:22-cv-00143-SLG Document 28 Filed 02/10/23 Page 2 of 9

Case No. 3:22-cv-00143-SLG, Haapaniemi v. Anchorage Daily News, et al.
Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction
Page 3 of 9
diversity cases depends on the state of facts that existed at the time of filing.”11
Here, Plaintiff was housed at a facility in the State of Texas, not California, at the
time he initiated this action in June 2022. But he has not established, or even
asserted, that he was a domiciliary of Texas at that time. Indeed, he was
transferred out of Texas less than two months later in August 2022.12 As
discussed below, Plaintiff was a domiciliary of Alaska prior to his incarceration in
Arizona, and he has failed to meet his burden to show that he is no longer a
domiciliary of this state. Because all parties are citizens of Alaska, the Court does
not have diversity jurisdiction.
a. Judicial Notice
As an initial matter, the Court takes judicial notice of certain undisputed facts
contained in court filings.13 On or about August 2008, the State of Alaska Office
11 Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 567 (2004).
12 See Docket 4, Notice of Change of Address.
13 Judicial notice is appropriate for facts that are “not subject to reasonable dispute” because they
“can be accurately and readily determine from sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably
questioned.” 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); Reyn's Pasta
Bella, LLC, 442 F.3d at 746 n.6 (“While some of these documents are filed under seal, they
nonetheless are readily verifiable and, therefore, the proper subject of judicial notice.”); see also
Fed. R. Evid. 201. This can include matters of public record, such as court documents. See Lee
v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689–90 (9th Cir. 2001). While judicial notice does not
typically extend to factual statements in the parties’ filings or findings of fact in court orders, the
facts included herein are not subject to reasonable dispute. By signing the Plea Agreement,
Plaintiff “admit[ed] the truth of the facts in the Factual Basis portion of [the] agreement.” U.S. v.
Haapaniemi, Case No. 3:19-cr-00078-RRB-MMS (D. Alaska), Docket 35 at 16, 20. Also, during
his change of plea hearing, Plaintiff acknowledged under oath that “every bit” of the factual
summary read from the plea agreement into the record by the prosecutor was true. Id. at Docket
45-1, Tr. 24:10-28:16. And Plaintiff had an opportunity to object to the Presentence Report, but
did not object to the findings from the PSR that are relevant to domiciliary as discussed herein.
Id. at Docket 84.
Case 3:22-cv-00143-SLG Document 28 Filed 02/10/23 Page 3 of 9

Case No. 3:22-cv-00143-SLG, Haapaniemi v. Anchorage Daily News, et al.
Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction
Page 4 of 9
of Children's Services initiated a Child in Need of Aid proceeding regarding
Plaintiff’s children.14 The investigation in that case triggered a simultaneous
investigation by police in Arizona.15 Plaintiff was arrested by the Arizona police in
December 2009.16 Plaintiff was subsequently convicted of sexual assault of a
minor and sentenced to ten years imprisonment by the Arizona state court.17 While
Plaintiff was incarcerated in Arizona, he was indicted on new felony charges by
this Court in July 2019.18 Later in 2019, Plaintiff was transferred out of the Arizona
Department of Corrections to Alaska and has remained in federal custody to
date.19 The District of Alaska case concerned allegations that from March 2017
through April 2019, both within the District of Arizona and the District of Alaska,
Mr. Haapaniemi had engaged in threatening communications directed at the social
worker in the Alaska Child in Need of Aid proceeding. Mr. Haapaniemi pleaded
14 U.S. v. Haapaniemi, Case No. 319-cr-78-RRB (D. Alaska), Docket 35 at 5.
15 U.S. v. Haapaniemi, Case No. 319-cr-78-RRB (D. Alaska), Docket 35 at 6.
16 U.S. v. Haapaniemi, Case No. 3:19-cr-78-RRB (D. Alaska), Docket 84 at 16-17, ¶¶ 39, 41.
17 U.S. v. Haapaniemi, Case No. 3:19-cr-78-RRB (D. Alaska), Docket 35 at 7.
18 U.S. v. Haapaniemi, Case No. 3:19-cr-78-RRB (D. Alaska), Docket 84 at 9, ¶ 1 (“On July 17,
2019, a three-count indictment was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska charging
Peter Lee Norris, aka Peter Lee Bjorn Norris, with Stalking (Count 1) and Mailing Threatening
Communications (Counts 2 and 3).”). .
19 U.S. v. Haapaniemi, Case No. 319-cr-78-RRB (D. Alaska), Docket 84 at 7 (“Release Status: In
Custody.”); Docket 84 at 9, ¶ 1 (A Writ of Habeas Corpus ad prosequendum was issued the same
day as the defendant was in Department of Corrections (DOC) custody in the State of Arizona.”).
Case 3:22-cv-00143-SLG Document 28 Filed 02/10/23 Page 4 of 9

Case No. 3:22-cv-00143-SLG, Haapaniemi v. Anchorage Daily News, et al.
Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction
Page 5 of 9
guilty to those charges and was sentenced to a consecutive total of 108 months
imprisonment and three years of supervised release.20
The Court also takes judicial notice of domestic violence protective orders
issued in 2017 and 2018 by the Alaska Superior Court that had been sought by
the social worker,21 and an unsuccessful writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso
Division.22
b. Diversity Jurisdiction
A federal district court may have jurisdiction of a civil action where the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 and there is diversity of citizenship is
between citizens of different states.23 A plaintiff must have “citizenship which is
diverse from that of every defendant.”24 And “[i]t has long been the case that ‘the
jurisdiction of the court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action
brought.’”25
20 U.S. v. Haapaniemi, Case No. 3:19-cr-78-RRB (D. Alaska), Docket 101 at 1 (“Defendant
pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 3 of the Indictment”); Docket 101 at 2 (Defendant to be “imprisoned
for a total term of 108 months”; consisting of 60 months on Count 1 and 48 months on Count 3,
to “run consecutively to Superior Court of Arizona case”); Docket 101 at 3 (“upon release from
imprisonment, the defendant shall be on supervised release for a term of 3 years.”).
21 See Hicks v. Norris, Case No. 3AN-17-01703CI; Hicks v. Norris, Case No. 3AN-18-00915C.
22 Haapaniemi v. Warden Hijar, Docket No. 3:21-cv-00309 (W.D. Tex. Dec 17, 2021).
23 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
24 See Cook v. AVI Casino Enterprises, Inc., 548 F.3d 718, 722 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Caterpillar,
Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (diversity jurisdiction requires “complete diversity of
citizenship”)).
25 Grupo Dataflux v. Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 570 (2004).
Case 3:22-cv-00143-SLG Document 28 Filed 02/10/23 Page 5 of 9

Case No. 3:22-cv-00143-SLG, Haapaniemi v. Anchorage Daily News, et al.
Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction
Page 6 of 9
The citizenship of a person for diversity jurisdiction depends on where he or
she is domiciled. A person is domiciled in a location “where he or she has
established a fixed habitation or abode in a particular place, and [intends] to remain
there permanently or indefinitely.”26 A change of domicile requires more than
physical presence at a new location; it also requires evidence of an intent to
remain in the new state indefinitely.27 “[F]ederal courts typically presume
a prisoner to be a resident of the state he or she formerly resided in prior to the
incarceration.”28 While the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has not established a
determinative test for the domicile of incarcerated persons,29 even assuming a
federal prisoner could under some circumstances demonstrate that he has
established a new domicile in the state where he is incarcerated, Plaintiff fails to
do so here.
Plaintiff was incarcerated at FCI La Tuna in Anthony, Texas when this suit
was filed on June 9, 2022.30 But at the time of this initial filing, Plaintiff’s domicile
was still Alaska.31 Although Plaintiff indicated diversity citizenship jurisdiction on
26 Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749–50 (9th Cir. 1986).
27 Id. at 750.
28 Hardaway v. Nooth, 2011 WL 7276958, n.2 (D. Or. Oct. 6, 2011) (citing to Smith v.
Cummings, 445 F.3d 1254, 1260 (10th Cir.2006); Denlinger v. Brennan, 87 F.3d 214 (7th
Cir.1996); Housand v. Heiman, 594 F.2d 923, 925 n. 5 (2nd Cir.1979) (per curiam ); Jones v.
Hadican, 552 F.2d 249, 250–51 (8th Cir), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 941 (1977); Stifel v. Hopkins, 477
F.2d 1116 (6th Cir.1973)).
29 U.S. v. Arango, 670 F. 3d 988, 997, n. 7 (stating “We do not decide whether a prisoner can
establish domicile in his place of incarceration for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, a
question that the Ninth Circuit has yet to address.).
30 Dockets 1, 3.
31 See, e.g., U.S. v. Haapaniemi, Case No. 3:19-cr-78-RRB (D. Alaska), Docket 84 at 19, ¶ 50
Case 3:22-cv-00143-SLG Document 28 Filed 02/10/23 Page 6 of 9

Case No. 3:22-cv-00143-SLG, Haapaniemi v. Anchorage Daily News, et al.
Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction
Page 7 of 9
his Civil Cover Sheet,32 Plaintiff made no statement as to his citizenship.33 On
October 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint while incarcerated in
California.34 In filings in August and November 2022, Plaintiff acknowledged he
had been in transit among federal prisons for four months without a permanent
address.35 Per Plaintiff’s own report, he has been transferred among various FCIs,
including but not limited to facilities in Texas, Oklahoma City, and Phoenix.36 In
California, he has spent time in FCI facilities in Moreno Valley, Victorville, and
Adelanto. In August 2022, he informed the Court that in the future, he expected to
be transferred to FCIs at Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Atlanta, and Miami.37
Because Plaintiff and Defendants were all domiciliaries of Alaska when
Plaintiff initiated this action in June 2022, the Court does not have diversity
jurisdiction over this action. Due to the lack of jurisdiction, permitting an attempt at
(PSR verifier stating that she “met the defendant in 2009 in Alaska”); Docket 84 at 22-24, ¶¶ 70,
74, 77 (referencing health care and evaluations obtained by Plaintiff in Anchorage, Alaska in 2008
and 2009); Docket 84 at 19, ¶84 (referencing arrest in Anchorage, Alaska in August 2009 for
violation of protective order).
32 Docket 2.
33 Docket 1. See also Screening Order, Docket 11 at 10 (“Plaintiff makes no statement as to his
state citizenship or that of the Defendants.”).
34 Docket 13.
35 Dockets 6 at 1; 16 at 2.
36 Docket 5 at 1.
37 Docket 5 at 1.
Case 3:22-cv-00143-SLG Document 28 Filed 02/10/23 Page 7 of 9

Case No. 3:22-cv-00143-SLG, Haapaniemi v. Anchorage Daily News, et al.
Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction
Page 8 of 9
further amendment in this case would be futile. Therefore, this action must be
DISMISSED.
NOTICES
The Court has previously cautioned Plaintiff that non-procedurally compliant
filings will not be considered. Notices are a type of filing that should be rarely used
and only for administrative functions—i.e., to notify the court of a change of
address or for an attorney to appear to represent a client.38 Notices that do not
comply with the procedural rules cannot be considered and should not be filed.
MOTIONS
In light of the instant screening, there is no operative complaint, and
therefore, any pending Motions must be DISMISSED AS MOOT.
However, the Court must address Plaintiff’s “Request to Add Defendants”
seeking to add former OCS worker and others to this action.39 The Court cautions
that frivolous filings or filings that aim to manipulate, harass, and obstruct justice
may result in filing restrictions.
In addition, Plaintiff is cautioned that filings with the Court must be legible.
Although handwritten filings are permitted, they must be double-spaced, have
margins of at least one inch around all text, and be the equivalent to at least 13-
38 See Local Civil Rule 11.1(b) (mandating self-represented litigants submit notice of a change of
address and telephone number); Local Civil Rule 11.1(a) (instituting procedures for attorneys
entering an appearance on behalf of their client).
39 Docket 20 at 2.
Case 3:22-cv-00143-SLG Document 28 Filed 02/10/23 Page 8 of 9

Case No. 3:22-cv-00143-SLG, Haapaniemi v. Anchorage Daily News, et al.
Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction
Page 9 of 9
point font size. 40
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for futility of amendment.
2. All pending Motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
3. The Clerk of Court shall issue final judgment in this action.
DATED this 10th day of February, 2023 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
40 See Local Civil Rule 7.5.
Case 3:22-cv-00143-SLG Document 28 Filed 02/10/23 Page 9 of 9