Hampton v. John Doe #1

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
TYRONE HAMPTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE #1,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:25-cv-00143-SLG
ORDER OF DISMISSAL UPON SCREENING OF SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
On April 21, 2026, the Court issued a Second Screening Order in this case
filed by self-represented prisoner Tyrone Hampton (Plaintiff).1 On May 1, 2026,
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC).2 The Court has now screened
the SAC in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
I. 	Plaintiff’s SAC fails to state a plausible claim
Plaintiff’s SAC names only John Doe #1 as Defendant, who is alleged to be
a 	qualified 	psychiatric 	provider 	responsible 	for 	prescribing 	or 	renewing
psychotropic medication. The SAC claims that beginning on January 20, 2025,
John Doe #1 “ignored Plaintiff’s request for psychotropic medication” and delayed
providing the requested medication for 77 days.3
1 Docket 6.
2 Docket 7.
3 Docket 7 at 5.
Case 3:25-cv-00143-SLG Document 8 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 4

Case No. 3:25-cv-00143-SLG, Hampton v. Doe
Order of Dismissal Upon Screening of Second Amended Complaint
Page 2 of 4
Plaintiff’s SAC is inconsistent with the records that Plaintiff filed with his First
Amended Complaint. And the SAC fails to correct the deficiencies identified in the
Second Screening Order and again provides only conclusory statements that are
insufficient to state a plausible claim of deliberate indifference against Defendant
John Doe #1. 	With his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Request for
Interview Form dated January 20, 2025, in which he requested “to speak with
mental health about meds need[ed] for stress and more.”4 	That request was
forward to Mental Health that same day. And on January 24, 2025, Mental Health
Clinician Nat [Dias] responded to Plaintiff’s request by stating: “Please complete
the attached logs and we will discuss your symptoms at our next follow-up.”5
Plaintiff’s prior filings further indicate that he was seen by a mental health provider
on February 12, 2025, and again on March 4, 2025, and that he had completed
the assigned workbook by March 25, 2025.6 	Soon after, he was seen by a
psychiatric 	provider 	who 	could 	prescribe 	psychotropic 	medications, 	which
occurred on April 7, 2025.7
Even accepting Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant knew Plaintiff requested
psychotropic medication on January 20, 2025, and knew that Plaintiff was not
prescribed his medications for approximately 77 days—instead of the much shorter
4 Docket 5-1 at 11.
5 Docket 5-1 at 11.
6 Docket 5-1 at 7.
7 Docket 5-1 at 2.
Case 3:25-cv-00143-SLG Document 8 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 4

Case No. 3:25-cv-00143-SLG, Hampton v. Doe
Order of Dismissal Upon Screening of Second Amended Complaint
Page 3 of 4
interval between Plaintiff’s completion of the assigned workbook by the end of
March and the April 7 prescription—a delay in medical care, without more, is
insufficient to state a claim against a prison official for deliberate indifference.8 The
SAC does not allege specific facts demonstrating that Defendant John Doe #1,
who appears to be a mental health clinician who cannot prescribe psychotropic
medication, knowingly delayed a referral, interfered with mental health treatment,
failed to facilitate Plaintiff’s access to treatment, or otherwise failed to respond to
a known medical need. For these reasons, the SAC does not plausibly allege
deliberate indifference by Defendant.
Because Plaintiff again fails to allege sufficient facts connecting Defendant’s
own acts or omissions to the alleged delay and any resulting harm, and instead
alleges facts that are at odds with his previously-filed documents,9 Plaintiff appears
to have no additional facts to allege beyond those already pleaded. Accordingly,
the Court finds that the SAC fails to state a plausible claim for relief, and that
according Plaintiff an additional opportunity to file another amended complaint
would be futile. Therefore, this action must be dismissed.
8 See Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F. 2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985).
9 Documents filed by a plaintiff that contradict the allegations of a complaint may fatally
undermine the complaint’s allegations. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979,
988 (9th Cir. 2001), amended by 275 F.3d 1187 (2001).
Case 3:25-cv-00143-SLG Document 8 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 4

Case No. 3:25-cv-00143-SLG, Hampton v. Doe
Order of Dismissal Upon Screening of Second Amended Complaint
Page 4 of 4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint at Docket 7 is DISMISSED for
failure to state a claim.
2. 	This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
3. 	This dismissal counts as a STRIKE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which
may limit Plaintiff’s ability to bring future civil rights cases in federal court.
4. 	All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
5. 	The Clerk of Court shall issue a final judgment and close this case.
6. 	With this order, the Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the
Second Screening Order at Docket 6.
DATED this 9th day of October, 2026, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
SHARON L. GLEASON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00143-SLG Document 8 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 4