Young-God v. Lyou et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
MUHAMMAD YOUNG-GOD,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRIS LYOU and MICHAEL GUZY,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:23-cv-00273-SLG
SCREENING ORDER
On December 4, 2023, self-represented prisoner Muhammad Young-God
(“Plaintiff”) filed a civil complaint, a civil cover sheet, an application to waive
prepayment of the filing fee, and a notice of Plaintiff’s intent to proceed without
counsel.1 Then, on December 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his
complaint.2 Plaintiff indicated he intended to bring this action against both
defendants in their personal capacities and attached an updated copy of page 2 of
the Court’s complaint form to replace page 2 in his original filing.3 On January 4,
2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of his change of address and requested the Court mail
the Complaint via first class mail to Douglas Kossler.4
1 Dockets 1–4. At Docket 4 is a Notice of Intent to Proceed without Counsel form for a writ of
habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 indicating Plaintiff intends to represent himself.
This civil rights case filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not a habeas action, and Plaintiff is
informed there is no right to court-appointed counsel in a federal civil case.
2 Docket 6.
3 Id.
4 Docket 8. Plaintiff states that Mr. Kossler is an attorney with the Special Prosecutions and
Case 3:23-cv-00273-SLG Document 9 Filed 03/29/24 Page 1 of 14

Case No. 3:23-cv-00273-SLG, Young-God v. Lyou and Guzy
Screening Order
Page 2 of 14
While a court may act with leniency towards a self-represented litigant for
procedural violations, all litigants are expected to review and comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules, and all Court orders.
Although handwritten filings are permitted, they must be legible and be the
equivalent of at least 13-point font size with adequate spacing between each line.5
The Court has tried to interpret the Complaint, but Plaintiff must ensure that any
amended complaint or future filing is legible. An amended complaint replaces the
prior complaint in its entirety,6 so a plaintiff cannot update claims or defendants by
filing a motion or declaration. In order to amend a complaint, a plaintiff must submit
a completely new complaint with all the claims the plaintiff seeks to allege.
Additionally, “Notices” requesting action from the Court are not motions and will
not be considered.7 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.8 “Notices” that do not comply with the
procedural rules cannot be considered and should not be filed. All Court filings
Appeals Office for the State of Alaska.
5 Local Civil Rule 7.5.
6 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; Local Civil Rule 15.1.
7 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b) (“A request for a court order must ... state with particularity the
grounds for seeking the order” and “state the relief sought.”).
8 See Local Civil Rule 11.1(b) (mandating self-represented litigants submit notice of a change of
address and telephone number); see also Local Civil Rule 11.1(a) (instituting procedures for
attorneys entering an appearance on behalf of their client).
Case 3:23-cv-00273-SLG Document 9 Filed 03/29/24 Page 2 of 14

Case No. 3:23-cv-00273-SLG, Young-God v. Lyou and Guzy
Screening Order
Page 3 of 14
requesting relief or requesting that the Court make a ruling or take an action of any
kind must be in the form of a complaint or motion, with an appropriate caption
designating the name of the filing.
For the reasons above, Plaintiff’s motion at Docket 6 is denied. However,
the Court has screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 1915A, and
finds it deficient, but grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in
accordance with the information provided in this order. Should any amended
complaint proceed beyond the screening stage, the Court will issue an order
directing service on the defendants at that time.
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
officer or employee of a governmental entity, even if the filing fee has been paid.9
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.10
9 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A.
10 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Case 3:23-cv-00273-SLG Document 9 Filed 03/29/24 Page 3 of 14

Case No. 3:23-cv-00273-SLG, Young-God v. Lyou and Guzy
Screening Order
Page 4 of 14
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.”11 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[.]”12 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.13 A complaint is insufficiently plead if it offers “naked assertions
devoid of further factual enhancement.”14 In conducting its screening review, a
court must liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff’s complaint and give the
plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.15 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,
11 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)).
12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
13 Id.
14 Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
15 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-00273-SLG Document 9 Filed 03/29/24 Page 4 of 14

Case No. 3:23-cv-00273-SLG, Young-God v. Lyou and Guzy
Screening Order
Page 5 of 14
unless to do so would be futile.16 Futility exists when “the allegation of other facts
consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.”17
DISCUSSION
From what the Court can discern, Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his
due process rights and failed to provide him with appropriate food, bedding, or
clothing.18 For relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and an order clarifying the
due process procedures that apply to this matter.19
I. 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.20 To act under color of state law, a complaint must allege that the
defendant acted with state authority as a state actor.21 To be deprived of a right,
the defendant’s action needs to either violate rights guaranteed by the federal
16 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)).
17 See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir.
1986).
18 Docket 1; Docket 1-2 at 1.
19 Docket 1 at 7. See also Docket 6 (alleging Defendant Guzy personally participated in causing
Plaintiff’s injury, and Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages).
20 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986).
21 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326
(1941)).
Case 3:23-cv-00273-SLG Document 9 Filed 03/29/24 Page 5 of 14

Case No. 3:23-cv-00273-SLG, Young-God v. Lyou and Guzy
Screening Order
Page 6 of 14
Constitution or an enforceable right created by federal law.22 Section 1983 does
not confer constitutional or federal statutory rights. Instead, it provides a
mechanism for remedying violations of pre-existing federal rights.23
A defendant in a civil rights lawsuit must be a “person.”24 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.”25 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.26
II. Due Process
The procedural guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendments’ Due Property
Clause applies only when a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest is
at stake.27 Prisoners “retain only a narrow range of protected liberty interests.”28 It
22 Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F. 3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995); Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S.
329, 340-41 (1997).
23 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393–94 (1989).
24 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
25 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
26 See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).
27 See Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 672-73 (1977).
28 Chappell v. Mandeville, 706 F.3d 1052, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Hewitt v. Helms, 459
Case 3:23-cv-00273-SLG Document 9 Filed 03/29/24 Page 6 of 14

Case No. 3:23-cv-00273-SLG, Young-God v. Lyou and Guzy
Screening Order
Page 7 of 14
is possible that “[a] state may create a liberty interest through statutes, prison
regulations, and policies.”29 However, a federal court must grant deference in state
prison policies, protocols, and procedures and should be cautious when asked to
intervene in the operation of a state prison.30 A prison disciplinary proceeding is
not a criminal prosecution, and therefore “the full panoply of rights due to a
[criminal] defendant” do not apply to a prisoner facing a disciplinary action.31
Instead, a disciplinary proceeding must accommodate both “institutional needs
and objectives and the provisions of the Constitution that are of general
application.”32
Plaintiff’s Complaint names two Defendants: Superintendent Lyou and
Correctional Officer Michael Guzy, both employed at ACC-East. One issue Plaintiff
appears to raise in the Complaint is Defendants’ handling of the food restriction he
was placed on in 2022. Although DOC admits it violated its policy regarding how
often Plaintiff’s food restrictions should have been reviewed,33 a violation of a
state prison regulation or policy does not, by itself, give rise to a federal
U.S. 460, 467 (1983)).
29 Chappell, 706 F.3d at 1063.
30 See Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528-30 (2006); see also Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802,
807 (9th Cir. 1995).
31 Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974).
32 Id.
33 Docket 1-2.
Case 3:23-cv-00273-SLG Document 9 Filed 03/29/24 Page 7 of 14

Case No. 3:23-cv-00273-SLG, Young-God v. Lyou and Guzy
Screening Order
Page 8 of 14
constitutional claim under Section 1983.34 Further, Alaska Department of
Corrections Policy and Procedure 809.04(III)(H) provides that “[t]he
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.”35 Accordingly,
Plaintiff could have sought review of the Superintendent’s decision in 2022 with
the Alaska Superior Court. In sum, Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim
that his federal due process rights were violated by Defendants when he was
placed on food restrictions in 2022.
III. Conditions of Confinement
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual
punishment and “embodies ‘broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized
standards, humanity and decency.’”36 Conditions of confinement may, consistent
with the Constitution, be restrictive and harsh.37 To prevail on a claim for
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, a plaintiff must demonstrate a
34 See, e.g., Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482 (1995) (finding no constitutionally protected
liberty interest in prison regulations even when the regulations are phrased in mandatory terms);
Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2009) (violation of California prison
regulations does not “establish a federal constitutional violation”).
35 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the Court takes judicial notices of the State of
Alaska Department of Corrections Policies & Procedures, available on their website at
https://doc.alaska.gov/commissioner/policies-procedures (last visited March 27, 2024).
36 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976) (internal citation omitted).
37 See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981); Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041,
1045 (9th Cir. 2006); Osolinski v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1996); Jordan v. Gardner, 986
F.2d 1521, 1531 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc).
Case 3:23-cv-00273-SLG Document 9 Filed 03/29/24 Page 8 of 14

Case No. 3:23-cv-00273-SLG, Young-God v. Lyou and Guzy
Screening Order
Page 9 of 14
deprivation of “the minimal civilized measures of life's necessities.”38 When
considering the conditions of confinement, a federal court must analyze each
condition separately to determine whether that specific condition violates the
Eighth Amendment.39 A federal court should also consider the amount of time to
which the prisoner was subjected to the condition.40 “Some conditions of
confinement may establish an Eighth Amendment violation ‘in combination’ when
each would not do so alone, but only when they have a mutually enforcing effect
that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need such as food,
warmth, or exercise.”41 Further, the Eighth Amendment requires “only that
prisoners receive food that is adequate to maintain health; it need not be tasty or
aesthetically pleasing.”42
As explained above, challenges to disciplinary decisions generally fall under
the purview of the state courts. However, punishments that involve dangerous
conditions of confinement or deliberate indifference to medical care may be
cognizable under the Eighth Amendment for convicted prisoners.43 But in this case,
38 Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1084 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
832 (1994)).
39 See Toussaint, 801 F.2d at 1107; Wright, 642 F.2d at 1133.
40 See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686–87 (1978); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042
(9th Cir. 2005).
41 Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991); see also Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1151
(9th Cir. 2010).
42 LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993).
43 Challenges to the conditions of confinement by pretrial detainees are cognizable under the
Case 3:23-cv-00273-SLG Document 9 Filed 03/29/24 Page 9 of 14

Case No. 3:23-cv-00273-SLG, Young-God v. Lyou and Guzy
Screening Order
Page 10 of 14
the Complaint does not contain sufficient facts to state a plausible claim under the
Eighth Amendment. The alleged “finger food” diet challenged by Plaintiff appears
to have been implemented as part of DOC’s “Full Suicide Protocol” for his own
protection.44 The restriction was removed on August 10, 2022, but reinstated after
Plaintiff threatened to break his window and assault a correctional officer with his
food tray.45 Plaintiff does not provide any additional information regarding the
alleged “loss of food, bedding and clothing”46 or claim any physical injury based on
these restrictions. Further, the documents attached to the Complaint only list
“finger food/bag meals” and “no container” as Plaintiff’s restrictions,47 and do not
include any indication he was deprived of bedding, clothing, or placed into a more
restrictive housing unit.48 For these reasons, the Complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted. However, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file
an amended complaint.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is accorded 60 days from the date of this order to file an amended
Fourteenth Amendment, not the Eighth Amendment.
44 Docket 1-2 at 1.
45 Docket 1-4 at 1.
46 Docket 1 at 4.
47 Dockets 1-4; 1-7; 1-12.
48 See, generally, Dockets 1-1 through 1-10.
Case 3:23-cv-00273-SLG Document 9 Filed 03/29/24 Page 10 of 14

Case No. 3:23-cv-00273-SLG, Young-God v. Lyou and Guzy
Screening Order
Page 11 of 14
complaint. An amended complaint replaces the prior complaint in its entirety.49
Any claim not included in the amended complaint will be considered waived. If
handwritten, an amended complaint must be legible in dark ink with adequate
spacing between each line. 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.
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.50 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
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
claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court grants Plaintiff leave
49 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; Local Civil Rule 15.1.
50 See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
Case 3:23-cv-00273-SLG Document 9 Filed 03/29/24 Page 11 of 14

Case No. 3:23-cv-00273-SLG, Young-God v. Lyou and Guzy
Screening Order
Page 12 of 14
to file an amended complaint in accordance with the guidance provided in this
order.
2. Plaintiff’s motion at Docket 6 is DENIED as moot.
3. Plaintiff is accorded 60 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.
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.51 Should
Plaintiff proceed with this lawsuit and sufficiently plead a claim for relief in an
51 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)&(2).
Case 3:23-cv-00273-SLG Document 9 Filed 03/29/24 Page 12 of 14

Case No. 3:23-cv-00273-SLG, Young-God v. Lyou and Guzy
Screening Order
Page 13 of 14
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).52 Failure to comply may result in dismissal of
this action.
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.53
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,
52 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. The Clerks’ Office can be reached by
phone at (907) 677-6130 or toll-free at (866) 243-3814.
53 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.
Case 3:23-cv-00273-SLG Document 9 Filed 03/29/24 Page 13 of 14

Case No. 3:23-cv-00273-SLG, Young-God v. Lyou and Guzy
Screening Order
Page 14 of 14
and its effective date.54 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
Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983”; and (2) form PS09, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal;
and (3) form PS23, Notice of Change of Address.
DATED this 29th day of March, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
54 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-00273-SLG Document 9 Filed 03/29/24 Page 14 of 14