Thompson v. Einerson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
CARL K. THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
LYNNIE EINERSON,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00204-JMK
SCREENING ORDER
On September 19, 2022, self-represented prisoner, Carl K. Thompson
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint, a civil cover sheet, and an application to waive
prepayment of the filing fee.1 	On November 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of
Filing 	Signature 	Page.”2 	The 	Court 	now 	screens 	Plaintiff’s 	Complaint 	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:
(i) 	is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) 	fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
1 Dockets 1–3.
2 Docket 4.
Case 3:22-cv-00204-JMK Document 5 Filed 03/27/23 Page 1 of 9

Case No. 3:22-cv-00204-JMK, Thompson v. Einerson
Screening Order
Page 2 of 9
(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
precise, 	factual 	detail, 	“unadorned, 	the 	defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation[s]” are insufficient to state a claim.7
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).
7 Id.
Case 3:22-cv-00204-JMK Document 5 Filed 03/27/23 Page 2 of 9

Case No. 3:22-cv-00204-JMK, Thompson v. Einerson
Screening Order
Page 3 of 9
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 	alleges 	Lynnie 	Einerson, 	Superintendent 	of 	the 	Wildwood
Correctional Complex (“Defendant”), violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment by placing a ten-day hold on Plaintiff's U.S. Postal Money Order
before making the money accessible to Plaintiff.10 Plaintiff asserts the Department
of Correction (DOC) policy allows a ten-day hold to be placed only on “non-
governmental checks.”11 For relief, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
Specifically, Plaintiff seeks a declaration stating “that a U.S. Postal Money Order
is a ‘government check’ not subject to any hold.”12 	Plaintiff also seeks injunctive
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 Docket 1 at 2, 4.
11 Docket 1 at 4.
12 Docket 1 at 6.
Case 3:22-cv-00204-JMK Document 5 Filed 03/27/23 Page 3 of 9

Case No. 3:22-cv-00204-JMK, Thompson v. Einerson
Screening Order
Page 4 of 9
relief preventing Defendant from placing any holds on future U.S. Postal Money
Orders made out to Plaintiff in the future.13
II. 	Failure to State a Claim
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[.]” Each claim should identify (1) the specific harm
that Plaintiff is alleging has occurred to him, (2) when that harm occurred, (3) where
that harm was caused, and (4) who he is alleging caused that specific harm to him.
While a complaint need not contain every precise, factual detail, “unadorned, the
defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]” are insufficient to state a claim.14
To state a claim, a complaint must demonstrate that a defendant caused the
plaintiff harm.15 	Additionally, claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 have specific,
elemental pleading requirements. The Court now provides the following guidance
to assist Plaintiff in the event Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint.
III. 	Civil Rights Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”)
To state a claim for relief under Section § 1983, a plaintiff must allege
plausible facts that, if proven, would establish (1) the defendant acting under color
of state law (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the federal Constitution
13 Docket 1 at 6.
14 Id.
15 To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must show that (1) he has suffered an injury in fact that is
concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical, (2) the injury is fairly
traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative,
that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 2, cl. 1.
Case 3:22-cv-00204-JMK Document 5 Filed 03/27/23 Page 4 of 9

Case No. 3:22-cv-00204-JMK, Thompson v. Einerson
Screening Order
Page 5 of 9
or federal statutes.16 To act under color of state law, a complaint must allege that
the defendant acted with state authority as a state actor.17 	To be deprived of a
right, the defendant’s action needs to either violate rights guaranteed by the
Constitution or an enforceable right created by federal law.18 	Section 1983 does
not confer federal constitutional or federal statutory rights. 	Instead, it provides a
mechanism for remedying violations of pre-existing federal rights.19 Section 1983
does not provide a mechanism for remedying alleged violations of state law.20
IV. 	Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from
taking private property for public use without just compensation. 	This right is
applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.21 	To prove that a “taking” has occurred in violation of the Fifth
Amendment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the subject matter is property in
which he has an interest and that (2) there has been a taking of that property for
public use for which compensation is due.22
16 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986).
17 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)).
18 Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F. 3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995); Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340–
41 (1997).
19 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393–94 (1989).
20 Galen v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 662 (9th Cir. 2007).
21 Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 160 (1980).
22 Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agric., 478 F.3d 985, 1002 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Schneider v. Cal. Dep’t
of Corr. (Schneider II ), 151 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir.1998).
Case 3:22-cv-00204-JMK Document 5 Filed 03/27/23 Page 5 of 9

Case No. 3:22-cv-00204-JMK, Thompson v. Einerson
Screening Order
Page 6 of 9
Plaintiff does not allege that his funds have been withheld from him, only
delayed. 	Although a temporary hold on money orders appears unnecessary
because they are issued by the United States Postal Service, such holds are
similar to standard commercial banking procedures that place holds on most
deposited checks.23 	As pled, Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support the taking of
property in which he has an interest or that prison officials took his property for
public use without compensating him. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a takings
claim.
V. 	Deprivation of Property without Due Process
The standard analysis for a claim of a violation of procedural due process
“proceeds in two steps: 	We first ask whether there exists a liberty or property
interest of which a person has been deprived, and if so we ask whether the
procedures followed by the State were constitutionally sufficient.”24 For a prisoner,
such a deprivation occurs when the prison “imposes atypical and significant
hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.”25 In order
to have a “property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an
abstract need or desire for it.”26 	Additionally, authorized deprivations of property
23 See, e.g., Roop v. Ryan, 2013 WL 3155402, at *5 (D. Ariz. June 20, 2013).
24 Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011) (per curiam).
25 Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. at 472, 484 (1995).
26 Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972).
Case 3:22-cv-00204-JMK Document 5 Filed 03/27/23 Page 6 of 9

Case No. 3:22-cv-00204-JMK, Thompson v. Einerson
Screening Order
Page 7 of 9
are permissible if carried out pursuant to a regulation that is reasonably related to
a legitimate penological interest.27
Again, Plaintiff does not claim his funds have been withheld, only delayed.
Thus, absent additional facts, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for violation of the due
process clause. Even construing Plaintiff’s claims liberally, Plaintiff does not allege
federally protected constitutional or civil rights, but rather systemic grievances best
addressed 	through 	the 	legislative 	and 	political 	processes. 	Therefore, 	his
Complaint must be dismissed. However, the Court grants leave to amend.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Complaint at Docket 1 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 	The Court grants leave
to amend.
2. 	Plaintiff is accorded 30 days to file one of the following:
a. 	First Amended Complaint, in which Plaintiff restates his claims to
address 	the 	deficiencies 	identified 	in 	this 	order. 	An 	amended
complaint should be on the Court’s form, which is being provided to
Plaintiff with this order. 	An amended complaint replaces the prior
complaints in its entirety.28 	Plaintiff need not supply legal research,
only the facts that he alleges in support of an amended complaint.
27 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).
28 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and Local Civil Rule 15.1.
Case 3:22-cv-00204-JMK Document 5 Filed 03/27/23 Page 7 of 9

Case No. 3:22-cv-00204-JMK, Thompson v. Einerson
Screening Order
Page 8 of 9
Plaintiff must include all of the claims he seeks to bring in an amended
complaint. Any claims not included in the amended complaint will be
considered waived. Any exhibits attached to the amended complaint
should be submitted without alteration by Plaintiff; OR
b. 	Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, in which Plaintiff elects to close and
end this case.
3. 	If Plaintiff does not file either an Amended Complaint or Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal on the Court form within 30 days, this case may be dismissed
with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) without further notice to
Plaintiff. 	This dismissal would count as a “strike” against Plaintiff under
§ 1915(g).29 	A voluntary dismissal does not count as a “strike” under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
4. 	At all times, Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address.
Such notice shall be titled “NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS.” 	This
notice must not include any requests for any other relief, and it must be
served on any Defendant’s attorney who makes an appearance in this case.
Failure to file a notice of change of address may result in the dismissal of
29 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prohibits a prisoner who files more than three actions or appeals in any federal court
in the United States which are dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, from bringing any other actions without prepayment of fees unless the prisoner can
demonstrate that he or she is in “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
Case 3:22-cv-00204-JMK Document 5 Filed 03/27/23 Page 8 of 9

Case No. 3:22-cv-00204-JMK, Thompson v. Einerson
Screening Order
Page 9 of 9
this case under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without
further notice to Plaintiff.
5. 	Each litigant is responsible for keeping a copy of each document filed with
the Court. When a litigant mails a document to the Court, the Court will mail
to the litigant a Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) that will indicate when that
document was filed on the docket and the docket number of the document.
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 party may file a motion asking for
the cost of copies to be waived or reduced.
6. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff the following forms with this
order: 	(1) form PS01, with “FIRST AMENDED” written above the title
“Prisoner’s Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983”; (2) form
PS09, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; (3) form PS23, Notice of Change of
Address; and (4) the District Court’s handbook, “R EPRESENTING YOURSELF
IN ALASKA ’ S F EDERAL C OURT .”
DATED this 27th day of March, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:22-cv-00204-JMK Document 5 Filed 03/27/23 Page 9 of 9