Jones v. Blades et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
DARIN LEE JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
BLADES, Sgt D.O.C.; and MACK,
Co D.O.C.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:23-cv-00213-JMK
SCREENING ORDER
On September 14, 2023, self-represented prisoner Darin Lee Jones filed a
civil complaint, a civil cover sheet, and an application to waive prepayment of the
filing fee.1 Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his right to adequate medical care
on March 28, 2023.2 For relief, Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $2 million,
punitive damages in the amount of $2 million, and an order holding Defendants
accountable.3 	On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an update
on the status of his case.4 	The Court now screens Plaintiff’s Complaint in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
1 Dockets 1–4.
2 Docket 1 at 3.
3 Docket 1 at 9.
4 Docket 6.
Case 3:23-cv-00213-JMK Document 7 Filed 02/08/24 Page 1 of 17

Case No. 3:23-cv-00213-JMK, Jones v. Blades, et al.
Screening Order
Page 2 of 17
Although the scope of review generally is limited to the contents of the
complaint, the Court may also consider documents attached to the complaint,
documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial
notice.5 	During screening, the Court is not required “to wade through exhibits to
determine whether cognizable claims have been stated.”6 However, exhibits that
contradict the allegations of a complaint may fatally undermine the complaint’s
allegations.7 	As explained further below, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain
sufficient plausible facts to meet the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure for a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”).
Therefore, the Court must dismiss the Complaint. 	However, the Court grants
Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in accordance with the guidance
contained in this order.
SCREENING STANDARD
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court is required to screen
complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or
5 United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).
6 Woodrow v. Cty. of Merced, No. 1:13-cv-01505-AWI, 2015 WL 164427, at *4 (E.D. Cal.
2015).
7 Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001), amended by 275
F.3d 1187 (2001) (noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including ...
details contrary to his claims”).
Case 3:23-cv-00213-JMK Document 7 Filed 02/08/24 Page 2 of 17

Case No. 3:23-cv-00213-JMK, Jones v. Blades, et al.
Screening Order
Page 3 of 17
officer or employee of a governmental entity.8 	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
(iii) 	seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.9
Before a court may dismiss any portion of a complaint, a court must provide
a 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.10
Futility exists when “the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged
pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.”11
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his right to adequate medical care when
Defendant Sergeant Blades told Defendant Correctional Officer Mack to “put [him]
… in the hole for no reason.”12 	Plaintiff claims he is prone to infections, and he
alleges an infection in his leg was made worse due to the unsanitary condition of
8 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A.
9 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
10 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)).
11 See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir.
1986).
12 Docket 1 at 3.
Case 3:23-cv-00213-JMK Document 7 Filed 02/08/24 Page 3 of 17

Case No. 3:23-cv-00213-JMK, Jones v. Blades, et al.
Screening Order
Page 4 of 17
the cell. 	He claims that although there were multiple alternative cells available,
Plaintiff was put into the “ADA cell,”13 which had smeared feces “all over the bed”
from the previous occupant.14 	Plaintiff claims he was subsequently hospitalized
for seven days and had three surgeries.15 	In the attached documents, Plaintiff
includes a narrative describing his previous knee replacement, infections, and
allegations against Doctor Lawrence and Doctor Holgram,16 and an unknown
female “Dr. Lady.”17 	The Court takes judicial notice of Jones v. Department of
Corrections, 	et 	al., 	Case 	No. 	3:23-cv-00198-SLG-KFR, 	alleging 	inadequate
medical care against Doctors Lawrence and Holgram.18 	In both cases, Plaintiff
describes a knee surgery in 2020 followed by infections and subsequent surgeries.
In this case, Plaintiff claims Defendants “were very aware” of the infection he had
in his leg when they placed him in the cell.19 It is unclear from the filings which, if
any, surgeries Plaintiff had after the alleged incident March 28, 2023, or what injury
13 Docket 1-1.
14 Docket 1 at 3, Docket 1-1.
15 Id.
16 The last name of this doctor is spelled in various ways throughout the filings—Holgram,
Hallgram, Hallgum, etc. 	To maintain consistency and coherence, the Court uses
Dr. Holgram to refer to this individual.
17 Docket 1-1 at 3.
18 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.” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). A court can take judicial notice of
its own files and records. Fed. R. Evid. 201.
19 Docket 1-1 at 1.
Case 3:23-cv-00213-JMK Document 7 Filed 02/08/24 Page 4 of 17

Case No. 3:23-cv-00213-JMK, Jones v. Blades, et al.
Screening Order
Page 5 of 17
Plaintiff claims occurred as a result. 	As explained further below, Plaintiff has not
pleaded sufficient facts that, if proven, would state a plausible inadequate medical
care claim.
I. 	Requirements to State a Claim
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.”20 	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[.]”21 While a complaint need not, and should not, contain every factual detail,
“unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]” are insufficient to
state a claim.22 	A complaint is insufficiently plead if it offers “naked assertions
devoid of further factual enhancement.”23 	In conducting its screening review, a
court must liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff’s pleading and give the
plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.24
20 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)).
21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
22 Id.
23 Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
24 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)).
Case 3:23-cv-00213-JMK Document 7 Filed 02/08/24 Page 5 of 17

Case No. 3:23-cv-00213-JMK, Jones v. Blades, et al.
Screening Order
Page 6 of 17
II. 	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 or federal
statutes.25 	A defendant in a civil rights lawsuit must be a “person.”26 	A person
acting under the color of state law “‘subjects another to the deprivation of a
constitutional right, within the meaning of Section 1983, if the person does an
affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act
which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is
made.”27 A plaintiff must allege that he or she suffered a specific injury as a result
of the conduct of a particular defendant, and the plaintiff must allege an affirmative
link between the injury and the conduct of that defendant.28
A. 	Inadequate medical care
In order to state a claim for violations involving medical care, an inmate must
allege plausible facts that, if proven, would establish that a defendant has been
deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need.29 A serious medical need is an
25 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986).
26 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
27 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
28 See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371–72, 377 (1976).
29 Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014).
Case 3:23-cv-00213-JMK Document 7 Filed 02/08/24 Page 6 of 17

Case No. 3:23-cv-00213-JMK, Jones v. Blades, et al.
Screening Order
Page 7 of 17
objective standard and may be found if the “failure to treat a prisoner’s condition
could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain.”30 Indicators of a serious medical need include: “an injury that a reasonable
doctor or patient would find important and worthy of comment or treatment; the
presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily
activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain.”31
As explained further below, “claims for violations of the right to adequate
medical care brought by pretrial detainees against individual defendants under the
Fourteenth 	Amendment 	must 	be 	evaluated 	under 	an 	objective 	deliberate
indifference standard.”32 Whereas, once convicted, a prisoner33 may only bring a
claim for inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and
30 Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (citations and further
internal quotation marks omitted).
31 Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d at 1066 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974
F.2d 1050, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v.
Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997).
32 Gordon v. Cnty. Of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[M]edical care claims
brought by pretrial detainees also ‘arise under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause, rather than under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Clause’”) (quoting Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1069–70 (9th Cir.
2016)). 	See also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979) (“[U]nder the Due Process
Clause, a detainee may not be punished prior to an adjudication of guilt in accordance
with due process of law.”).
33 Norbert v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 10 F.4th 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2021) (a pretrial
detainee becomes a prisoner once they are convicted).
Case 3:23-cv-00213-JMK Document 7 Filed 02/08/24 Page 7 of 17

Case No. 3:23-cv-00213-JMK, Jones v. Blades, et al.
Screening Order
Page 8 of 17
Unusual Punishments Clause and must satisfy both an objective and subjective
deliberate indifference standard.34
1. 	Pretrial detainee medical care claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment
To state a medical care claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, a pretrial
detainee must plausibly allege facts that, if proven, would establish each of the
following four elements:
(1) 	the defendant made an intentional decision with respect
to the denial of needed medical care;
(2) 	the denial of needed medical care put the plaintiff at
substantial risk of suffering serious harm;
(3) 	the 	defendant 	did 	not 	take 	reasonable 	available
measures to abate or reduce the risk of serious harm, even though a
reasonable 	state 	actor 	under 	the 	circumstances 	would 	have
understood 	the 	high 	degree 	of 	risk 	involved—making 	the
consequences of the defendant’s conduct obvious; and
34 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (citing Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517,
526–27 (1984)).
Case 3:23-cv-00213-JMK Document 7 Filed 02/08/24 Page 8 of 17

Case No. 3:23-cv-00213-JMK, Jones v. Blades, et al.
Screening Order
Page 9 of 17
(4) 	by not taking such measures, the defendant caused the
plaintiff’s injuries.35
With 	respect 	to 	the 	third 	element, 	the 	defendant’s 	conduct 	must 	be
objectively unreasonable. 	A mere lack of due care by a state official does not
violate the Fourteenth Amendment. 	In other words, the pretrial detainee must
“prove more than negligence but less than subjective intent—something akin to
reckless disregard.”36 	This differs from the inquiry under the Eighth Amendment
which requires that the “prison official must subjectively have a sufficiently culpable
state of mind.”37
2. 	Convicted prisoner medical care claim under the Eighth
Amendment
To state a medical care claim under the Eighth Amendment, a convicted
prisoner must plausibly allege facts that, if proven, would establish each of the
following three elements:
(1) 	the plaintiff faced a serious medical need;
(2) 	the defendant was deliberately indifferent to that medical
need, 	that 	is, 	the 	defendant 	knew 	of 	that 	medical 	need 	and
35 Gordon v. Cty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124–35 (9th Cir. 2018).
36 Id. at 1125 (quoting Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016)).
37 Id. at 1125 n.4 (citations omitted).
Case 3:23-cv-00213-JMK Document 7 Filed 02/08/24 Page 9 of 17

Case No. 3:23-cv-00213-JMK, Jones v. Blades, et al.
Screening Order
Page 10 of 17
disregarded it by failing to take reasonable measures to address it;
and
(3) 	the defendant’s failure to act caused harm to the plaintiff.
“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard. 	A showing of medical
malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation.”38
Further, a difference of medical opinion or as to two alternative courses of
medically acceptable treatment is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference.39
“[T]o 	show 	deliberate 	indifference, 	a 	plaintiff 	must 	show 	that 	the 	course 	of
treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances
and that the defendants chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive
risk to the plaintiff’s health.”40 Delay of, or interference with, medical treatment can
also amount to deliberate indifference.41 When the prisoner is alleging that delay
38 Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
39 Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1029 (1996)
(citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 107–08). See also Simmons v. G. Arnett, No. 20-55043, 2022
WL 3906207, at *5 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[A]n inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical
care, differences of opinion in medical treatment, and harmless delays in treatment are
not enough to sustain an Eighth Amendment claim.”).
40 Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
41 See Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096; Clement, 298 F.3d at 905; Hallett, 296 F.3d at 744; Lopez,
203 F.3d at 1131; Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988).
Case 3:23-cv-00213-JMK Document 7 Filed 02/08/24 Page 10 of 17

Case No. 3:23-cv-00213-JMK, Jones v. Blades, et al.
Screening Order
Page 11 of 17
of medical treatment evinces deliberate indifference, however, the prisoner must
show that the delay led to further injury.42
3. 	Plaintiff’s claims of inadequate medical care
It is unclear if Plaintiff was sentenced at the time of the alleged incident, so
the Court is unable to determine whether his claim(s) should be analyzed under
the Eighth or the Fourteenth Amendment. 	Further, the surgeries and infections
appear to have occurred before the incident. 	So, the Court cannot discern what,
if any, harm Plaintiff claims he suffered because of Defendant’s conduct. Plaintiff
has not provided specific dates or instances in which he was denied medical care,
what specific ongoing injuries he alleges, what medical care he believes he needs,
and any specific defendant’s role in denying him care. 	In addition, in order to
sufficiently 	plead 	an 	individual 	capacity 	claim 	against 	a 	supervisor 	under
Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege “personal involvement in the constitutional
deprivation, or ... a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful
conduct and the constitutional violation.”43
B. 	Challenging a Disciplinary Action
Plaintiff does not make allegations or provide supporting documents that
demonstrate Plaintiff’s rights were violated when he was placed in “the hole.”
42 See Hallett, 296 F.3d at 745–46; Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d
404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).
43 Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1242–43 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Starr v. Baca, 652
F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Case 3:23-cv-00213-JMK Document 7 Filed 02/08/24 Page 11 of 17

Case No. 3:23-cv-00213-JMK, Jones v. Blades, et al.
Screening Order
Page 12 of 17
However, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge a disciplinary action, the Court
questions the viability of its jurisdiction over such allegations. Alaska Department
of Corrections Policy and Procedure 809.04(III)(H) governs the process after a
prisoner appeals a disciplinary decision, which states “The Superintendent’s
decision, other than for major infractions, is final and the prisoner has 30 days in
which to appeal the decision to the Superior Court.” Accordingly, Plaintiff’s proper
process to explore his allegations is not with the U.S. District Court for the District
of Alaska, but rather with the Alaska Superior Court.
Plaintiff’s Motion at Docket 6
The Court acts to resolve all pending cases in the most efficient manner
possible. A federal district court is a trial court simultaneously addressing a volume
and variety of cases of varying priorities; and a part of the Court’s responsibility is
“to see that [its] resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of
justice.”44 	Accordingly, the Court cannot issue orders and rulings purely on the
best timeline for a litigant. 	Until a Screening Order has been issued, the Court
discourages the filing of any motions or additional documents with the Court.
Nonetheless, the Court has now screened Plaintiff’s filings and issued this order.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as moot.
44 In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989) (per curiam). See also O’Loughlin v. Doe,
920 F.2d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[f]lagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be
tolerated because it enables one person to preempt the use of judicial time that properly
could be used to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.”).
Case 3:23-cv-00213-JMK Document 7 Filed 02/08/24 Page 12 of 17

Case No. 3:23-cv-00213-JMK, Jones v. Blades, et al.
Screening Order
Page 13 of 17
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is accorded 30 days from the date of this order to file second
amended complaint. 	An amended complaint replaces the prior complaint in its
entirety.45 	Any claim not included in the amended complaint will be considered
waived. 	However, an amended complaint need only contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”46 An amended
complaint need not contain legal research or analysis, but it must contain sufficient
facts that state a plausible claim for relief. 	A claim is “plausible” when the facts
alleged support a reasonable inference that the plaintiff is entitled to relief from a
specific defendant for specific misconduct. 	An amended complaint should not
contain a narrative and it need not contain or have attached to it medical records
or other documentation.
Although 	Plaintiff 	has 	been 	given 	the 	opportunity 	to 	file 	an 	amended
complaint, he shall not unjustifiably expand the scope of the case by alleging new
unrelated claims.47 	An amended complaint may 	not include any claims or
defendants for which Plaintiff lacks a sufficient legal or factual basis. An amended
complaint must set out each claim for relief separately. Each claim should identify
(1) the specific injury that the plaintiff is alleging has occurred, (2) when that injury
45 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; Local Civil Rule 15.1.
46 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
47 See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
Case 3:23-cv-00213-JMK Document 7 Filed 02/08/24 Page 13 of 17

Case No. 3:23-cv-00213-JMK, Jones v. Blades, et al.
Screening Order
Page 14 of 17
occurred, (3) where that injury was caused, and (4) who the plaintiff is alleging
caused that specific injury.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Complaint at Docket 1 is DISMISSED for failing to state a
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court grants Plaintiff leave
to file an amended complaint in accordance with the guidance provided in this
order.
2. 	Plaintiff’s motion for a status update at Docket 6 is DENIED as moot.
3. 	Plaintiff is accorded 30 days from the date of this order to file one of
the following:
a. 	First Amended Complaint, in which Plaintiff restates the 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; OR
b. 	Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, in which Plaintiff elects to close
and end the case.
4. 	If Plaintiff does not file either an Amended Complaint or Notice of
Voluntary 	Dismissal 	on 	the 	Court 	form, 	the 	case 	may 	be 	dismissed 	under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) without further notice to Plaintiff. 	The dismissal would
count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).48 	Prisoners who receive three or
48 A voluntary dismissal does not count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See also
Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that a dismissal counts
Case 3:23-cv-00213-JMK Document 7 Filed 02/08/24 Page 14 of 17

Case No. 3:23-cv-00213-JMK, Jones v. Blades, et al.
Screening Order
Page 15 of 17
more strikes cannot bring any other actions without prepaying the full filing fee
unless the prisoner can demonstrate that he or she is in “imminent danger of
serious physical injury.”49
5. 	Plaintiff’s application to waive prepayment of the filing fee at Docket 3
is GRANTED.
6. 	Plaintiff 	is 	advised 	federal 	law 	only 	allows 	prisoners 	to 	waive
prepayment of the fees associated with civil lawsuits. Prisoners must pay the filing
fee incrementally until paid in full, regardless of the outcome of the action.50
Should Plaintiff proceed with this lawsuit and sufficiently plead a claim for relief in
an amended complaint, the Court will issue a separate order on the collection of
the filing fee.
7. 	If Plaintiff is released while this case remains pending and the filing
fee has not been paid in full, Plaintiff must, within 30 days of his release, either
(1) pay the unpaid balance of his filing fee or (2) file a Non-Prisoner Application to
Waive the Filing Fee (Form PS11).51 Failure to comply may result in dismissal of
this action.
as a strike when the district court dismisses a complaint for a failure to state a claim,
grants leave to amend, and the plaintiff fails to amend the complaint).
49 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 	See also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051–52 (9th
Cir. 2007) (addressing imminent danger exception for the first time in the Ninth Circuit).
50 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)&(2).
51 The Court’s template forms are available upon request from the Clerk’s office and on
the Court’s website at https://www.akd.uscourts.gov/forms.
Case 3:23-cv-00213-JMK Document 7 Filed 02/08/24 Page 15 of 17

Case No. 3:23-cv-00213-JMK, Jones v. Blades, et al.
Screening Order
Page 16 of 17
8. 	Self-represented litigants are expected to review and comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules, and all Court orders.52
Failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions authorized by law,
including dismissal of the action.
9. 	Self-represented litigants must be ready to diligently pursue each
case to completion. Missing a deadline or otherwise failing to pursue a case may
result in the dismissal of the action.
10. 	At all times, all parties shall keep the Court informed of any change of
address or phone number. 	Such notice shall be titled “Notice of Change of
Address.” The Notice shall contain only information about the change of address,
and its effective date.53 The Notice shall not include requests for any other relief.
A Notice of Change of Address form, PS23, may be obtained from the Clerk of
Court, if needed. If a plaintiff fails to keep a current address on file with the Court,
that may result in a dismissal of the case without further notice to Plaintiff.
11. 	With this order, the Clerk is directed to send: 	(1) form PS01, with
“FIRST AMENDED” written above the title “Prisoner’s Complaint Under the Civil
52 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 	https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-
rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure; Court’s Local Rules: https://www
.akd.uscourts.gov/court-info/local-rules-and-orders/local-rules.
53 See Local Civil Rule 11.1(b) (requiring a notice of change of address to be filed, as
“[s]elf-represented parties must keep the court and other parties advised of the party’s
current address and telephone number.”).
Case 3:23-cv-00213-JMK Document 7 Filed 02/08/24 Page 16 of 17

Case No. 3:23-cv-00213-JMK, Jones v. Blades, et al.
Screening Order
Page 17 of 17
Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983”; (2) form PS09, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; and
(3) form PS23, Notice of Change of Address.
DATED this 8th day of February, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:23-cv-00213-JMK Document 7 Filed 02/08/24 Page 17 of 17