Hooks v. State of Alaska

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
RAND J. HOOKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF ALASKA,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00268-JMK
ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REMAND TO
STATE COURT & MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
On December 9, 2022, Rand Hooks, a self-represented litigant (“Plaintiff”),
filed a Notice of Removal from Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial
District at Anchorage, case number 3AN-22-07308CI.1 He also filed a Civil Cover
Sheet and an Application to Waive the filing fee.2 	On December 19, 2022,
Defendant State of Alaska (“Defendant”) filed a Motion to Remand to State Court
and requests recovery of attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of the
removal.3 For the reasons explained below, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED IN
PART.
1 Docket 1.
2 Dockets 2–3.
3 Docket 6.
Case 3:22-cv-00268-JMK Document 7 Filed 12/28/22 Page 1 of 5

Case No. 3:22-cv-00268-JMK, Hooks v. State of Alaska
Order Remanding to State Court
Page 2 of 5
Plaintiff Has Not Named a Proper Defendant
The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought
against a state both by its own citizens, as well as by citizens of other states.4 This
prohibition extends to suits against states themselves, and to suits against state
agencies.5 	Likewise, “[j]udges and those performing judge-like functions are
absolutely 	immune 	from 	damage 	liability 	for 	acts 	performed 	in 	their 	official
capacities.”6 This judicial immunity is immunity from lawsuit, not just from ultimate
assessment of damages, and it cannot be overcome by allegations of bad faith or
malice.7 	Judicial immunity is an absolute immunity from suit overcome only
(1) where a judge takes actions outside of judicial capacity, or (2) where judicial
actions were taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.8
Plaintiff brings suit against the State of California.9 Although he only names
the state as a defendant, he also alleges Honorable Judge Gregory Miller “violated
4 See Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991).
5 See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Taylor v. List, 880
F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
6 Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075–76 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted) (in determining if
an action is judicial, courts focus on whether “(1) the precise act is a normal judicial function;
(2) the events occurred in the judge’s chambers; (3) the controversy centered around a case then
pending before the judge; and (4) the events at issue arose directly and immediately out of a
confrontation with the judge in his or her official capacity.”). “These factors are to be construed
generously in favor of the judge and in light of the policies underlying judicial immunity.”
Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1076.
7 Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985);
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967)).
8 Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11–12 (1991).
9 Docket 1.
Case 3:22-cv-00268-JMK Document 7 Filed 12/28/22 Page 2 of 5

Case No. 3:22-cv-00268-JMK, Hooks v. State of Alaska
Order Remanding to State Court
Page 3 of 5
the CDC Moratoriums Federally Mandated Order [and] didn’t adhere to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.”10 	Plaintiff specifically alleges Judge Miller improperly
granting summary judgment against him in the civil matter Stephan v. Hooks, 3AN-
19-05932CI.11
The State of Alaska and judges are immune from suit. No defendants could
be substituted under these facts. 	Accordingly, this case cannot proceed as pled
and amendment would be futile.12 	Therefore, the Court must REMAND THIS
MATTER TO STATE COURT. However, as discussed below, Defendant’s Motion
for Attorney Fees is DENIED.
Attorney Fees
Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney fees under
§ 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis
for seeking removal. 	Conversely, when an objectively reasonable basis exists,
fees should be denied.13 	In applying this rule, district courts retain discretion to
consider whether unusual circumstances warrant a departure from the rule in a
given case.14
10 Docket 1 at 7.
11 See Docket 1 at 5–6.
12 Because the Court is remanding for naming Defendants who are immune from suit, the Court
need not address the additional arguments raised in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
13 See, e.g., Hornbuckle, 385 F.3d, at 541; Valdes v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 199 F.3d 290, 293
(C.A.5 2000).
14 Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005).
Case 3:22-cv-00268-JMK Document 7 Filed 12/28/22 Page 3 of 5

Case No. 3:22-cv-00268-JMK, Hooks v. State of Alaska
Order Remanding to State Court
Page 4 of 5
Although Plaintiff brought suit against improper defendants, he alleges
violations of several U.S. statutes, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983.15 While the Court
acknowledges Defendant’s position on Plaintiff’s procedural errors and concerns
regarding forum shopping, the Courts finds an objectively reasonable basis for
seeking removal exists. Therefore, the court will not award fees and costs.
However, the Court provides the following guidance to Plaintiff should he
wish to pursue future litigation.
Notice to Plaintiff
A 	court 	may 	act 	with 	leniency 	towards 	a 	self-represented 	litigant 	for
procedural violations, but attorneys and self-represented litigants are expected to
follow the same rules and procedures.16 	Civil actions in federal courts abide by
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.17 	Additionally, the U.S. District Court of
Alaska has Local Civil Rules.18 Under Local Civil Rule 11.2, the Court is well within
its power to impose sanctions for rules violations, including fines, costs, and
attorney’s fees awards. Beyond these rules-based options, a federal district court
15 Docket 1 at 7.
16 Motoyama v. Hawaii, Dept. of Transp., 864 F. Supp. 2d 965, 976 (2012); see also King v. Atiyeh,
814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d
896 (9th Cir. 2012) (establishing self-represented litigants are bound by the same procedural rules
as represented parties).
17 The most current Rules of Civil Procedure will be available here: https://www.uscourts.
gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure.
18 The most current local rules will be here: https://www.akd.uscourts.gov/court-info/local-rules-
and-orders/local-rules.
Case 3:22-cv-00268-JMK Document 7 Filed 12/28/22 Page 4 of 5

Case No. 3:22-cv-00268-JMK, Hooks v. State of Alaska
Order Remanding to State Court
Page 5 of 5
possess inherent powers to manage their own affairs in order to achieve orderly
dispositions.19 	This 	includes 	fashioning 	sanctions 	for 	conduct 	that 	brings
duplicative claims that have already been litigated, abuses the judicial process or
is in bad faith.20 The Court cautions Plaintiff to carefully consider any future filings
with the Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	Defendant’s Motion to Remand to State Court is GRANTED;
2. 	Defendant’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs is DENIED;
3. 	All pending Motions and Orders are DISMISSED AS MOOT;
4. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to REMAND this action to the Superior
Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at Anchorage.
DATED this 28th day of December, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19 America Unites for Kids v. Rousseau, 985 F.3d 1075, 1088 (9th Cir. 2021).
20 Id. See also Abdul–Akbar v. Dep’t of Corr., 910 F. Supp. 986 (D. Del., 1995), aff’d, 111 F.3d
125 (3d Cir.) (table decision), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 852 (1997).
Case 3:22-cv-00268-JMK Document 7 Filed 12/28/22 Page 5 of 5