Hines v. Axelsson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
GUY DOUGLAS HINES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TAMMI AXELSSON, et al.
Defendants.
Case No. 3:19-cv-00155-RRB
SCREENING ORDER RE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
On May 30, 2019, Guy Douglas Hines, a self-represented prisoner, filed a
Civil Rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of the Filing Fee, and a Request for the Appointment of Counsel.1 In
that Complaint, Mr. Hines alleged a single claim of retaliation against Fairbanks
Correctional Center Superintendent Tami Axelsson. 	The Court screened the
Complaint, 	certified 	the 	claim, 	and 	issued 	an 	Order 	Directing 	Service 	and
Response, along with an Order to Collect the Filing Fee.2 	Shortly thereafter,
Mr. Hines filed several motions to add additional defendants to his Complaint. The
1 Dockets 1; 3; 4.
2 Dockets 7–8.
Case 3:19-cv-00155-RRB Document 17 Filed 12/20/19 Page 1 of 10

3:19-cv-155-RRB, Hines v. Axelsson
Screening Order Re: First Amended Complaint
Page 2 of 10
Court denied the motions, stayed the Answer from the Defendants, and gave
Mr. Hines leave to amend. 	Mr. Hines proceeded by filing his First Amended
Complaint.3
In 	Mr. 	Hines’s 	First 	Amended 	Complaint, 	he 	names 	five 	defendants:
Superintendent Tami Axelsson, Probation Officer Timothy Dye, Probation Officer
Jane Doe Hoffert, Contractor Provider John Doe, and Assistant Attorney General
Matthias Cicotte. Broadly, he alleges a vast retaliation scheme perpetrated against
him from August to early September 2017 due to his questioning of staff and filing
of prison grievances.
Mr. Hines alleges that on September 11, 2017, Superintendent Axelsson
interfered in an investigation and that when he questioned her staff’s conduct, she
retaliated against him by placing him in “solitary confinement for a short period,
until [he] said [he] wouldn’t raise any more of a stink about their actions.”4
Mr. Hines alleges that he “again started asking questions” and that he “was moved
to . . . another housing unit, that does not have ready and easy access to medical
[which he needs] because of [his] heart condition that is well documented . . . [as
he has] to be transported to the hospital when [he has] an episode.”5 	In fact, he
alleges, he “had an episode with [his] heart, and could not get staffs’ attention, and
3 Dockets 9; 11; 12; 15; 16.
4 Docket 16 at 3.
5 Id.
Case 3:19-cv-00155-RRB Document 17 Filed 12/20/19 Page 2 of 10

3:19-cv-155-RRB, Hines v. Axelsson
Screening Order Re: First Amended Complaint
Page 3 of 10
injured [his] foot doing so, then had to be transported by EMS to the hospital, to
have [his] heart converted, then was brought back and put back in the same cell,
and was left there until [he] was transferred to GCCC, and no grievance was
granted by DOC for her retaliatory conduct.”6 These are the same allegations as
previously certified by the Court.7
Mr. Hines further alleges that during August to September 2017, Defendants
Dye, Hoffert, and Doe retaliated against him by tampering with his state files by
removing substance abuse records and assessments. 	Mr. Hines alleges that
these defendants purged his file of these records because of his questioning of
corrections staff. Mr. Hines alleges these actions resulted in a denial of both parole
and furlough, causing him to remain incarcerated.
Currently, Mr. Hines is litigating the same facts as alleged in this action in
state court.8 	The Court takes judicial notice of Hines v. State of Alaska Board of
Parole, Case No. 3AN-18-10185CI and Hines v. State of Alaska Department of
Corrections, Case No. 3AN-18-10045CI; both of these cases are appeals from an
administrative agency and pending before the Alaska Superior Court. 	The Court
notes that Hines v. State of Alaska Department of Corrections, Case No. 3AN-18-
10045CI, which was litigating the denial of Mr. Hines’s furlough, is closed. 	The
6 Id.
7 Docket 7.
8 Docket 16 at 9.
Case 3:19-cv-00155-RRB Document 17 Filed 12/20/19 Page 3 of 10

3:19-cv-155-RRB, Hines v. Axelsson
Screening Order Re: First Amended Complaint
Page 4 of 10
Court further notes that Hines v. State of Alaska Board of Parole, Case No. 3AN-
18-10185CI, which is litigating Mr. Hines’s denial of parole, remains pending, with
oral argument set for March 2020.
Lastly, Mr. Hines alleges that Matthias Cicotte has refused to produce
records and documents and used “undue delay tactics,” which he believes is
furtherance of the retaliation scheme. Defendant Cicotte is the Assistant Attorney
General representing the Department of Corrections in the afore-mentioned state
court cases.9
For relief, Mr. Hines requests (1) damages “in excess of $50,000.00 per
defendant”; (2) punitive damages to be determined; (3) an order requiring the
defendants “tender resignation from DOC entirely”; (4) a declaration that “they did
interfere with an investigation, and retaliated”; and (5) “all other staff that acted at
the direction, ‘Public Admonishment.’”10
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
Federal law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a civil
complaint filed by a self-represented prisoner seeking a waiver of the prepayment
of the filing fee. In this screening, a court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that the action:
(i) 	is frivolous or malicious;
9 Docket 16 at 8.
10 Docket 16 at 11.
Case 3:19-cv-00155-RRB Document 17 Filed 12/20/19 Page 4 of 10

3:19-cv-155-RRB, Hines v. Axelsson
Screening Order Re: First Amended Complaint
Page 5 of 10
(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.11
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.”12 	In conducting its
review, a court must liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff’s pleading and
give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.13 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.14
11 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b).
12 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)).
13 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)).
14 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)).
Case 3:19-cv-00155-RRB Document 17 Filed 12/20/19 Page 5 of 10

3:19-cv-155-RRB, Hines v. Axelsson
Screening Order Re: First Amended Complaint
Page 6 of 10
DISCUSSION
Mr. Hines has alleged a vast retaliation scheme in violation of his civil rights
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	His prior certified claim against Defendant Axelsson
remains the same and does not mention the missing records at issue in current
state court litigation. 	At his own admission and as judicially noticed, Mr. Hines
currently is litigating in state court on the same facts as raised in the allegations
against Defendants Dye, Hoffert, and Doe. 	Defendant Cicotte represents the
Department of Corrections in the current state court case. At this time, Mr. Hines’s
administrative appeal regarding the denial of his parole proceeds on the theory
that his records were purged in retaliation. 	The doctrine of Younger abstention
requires the federal court to abstain where a federal court may enjoin a state court
criminal or other special civil proceedings. 	Accordingly, the federal court must
abstain from hearing the claims against Defendants Dye, Hoffert, Doe, and Cicotte
for the reasons discussed below.
1. 	Defendant Axelsson
Mr. Hines realleges the same claims against Defendant Axelsson that have
been previously certified by the Court.15 Accordingly, this claim may proceed.
2. 	Defendants Dye, Hoffert, Doe, & Cicotte
The Younger abstention doctrine provides that federal courts may not
15 Docket 16 at 3; see Docket 7.
Case 3:19-cv-00155-RRB Document 17 Filed 12/20/19 Page 6 of 10

3:19-cv-155-RRB, Hines v. Axelsson
Screening Order Re: First Amended Complaint
Page 7 of 10
generally exercise jurisdiction when doing so would interfere with state judicial
proceedings.16 	The core of Younger abstention is that a federal court cannot
interfere with pending state court criminal proceedings, absent a “showing of bad
faith, harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call for equitable
relief.”17 Additionally in exceptional circumstances, the Younger doctrine extends
to state civil proceedings that: (1) “are akin to criminal prosecutions”; (2) “implicate
a State’s interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts”; (3) “civil
enforcement proceedings”; and (4) “civil proceedings involving certain orders that
are uniquely in furtherance of the state courts ability to perform their judicial
functions.”18
A federal court “must abstain under Younger if four requirements are met:
(1) a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates an
important state interest; (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal
constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal court action would
enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere
with the state proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves.”19 	If the Younger
16 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
17 Id. at 54.
18 Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72–73 (2013).
19 San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087,
1092 (9th Cir. 2008).
Case 3:19-cv-00155-RRB Document 17 Filed 12/20/19 Page 7 of 10

3:19-cv-155-RRB, Hines v. Axelsson
Screening Order Re: First Amended Complaint
Page 8 of 10
doctrine applies, the court must dismiss claims seeking equitable relief and stay
claims seeking damages pending completion of the state court proceedings.20
At issue, Mr. Hines has alleged that retaliation from Defendants Dye, Hoffert,
Doe, and Cicotte caused or contributed to the denial of his parole request, because
of the interference with his records. 	The State of Alaska has passed a criminal
judgment 	on 	Mr. 	Hines for 	violations 	of Alaska 	state 	law 	and continues 	to
incarcerate 	him 	for 	this 	sentence. 	Currently, 	Mr. 	Hines 	is 	challenging 	his
incarceration and the denial of his parole. 	The State of Alaska has an important
interest in enforcing its laws. 	Mr. Hines has raised and is contesting the core
constitutional issue present in this case—retaliation. 	Mr. Hines has requested
injunctive relief, thereby if the federal court intervened it would, in practical effect,
enjoin the state matter.
Thus, 	the 	matter 	at 	present 	fulfills 	all 	the 	requirements 	for 	Younger
abstention. 	Therefore, the Court must abstain from exercising jurisdiction and
dismiss the claims against Defendants Dye, Hoffert, Doe and Cicotte without
prejudice. 	Mr. Hines should conclude his appeal regarding his parole and then
may return to the Court regarding these claims.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Hines has alleged a vast and multi-party scheme of retaliation resulting
in harm to his person and liberty. 	Mr. Hines’s allegations against Defendant
20 See Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 968 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
Case 3:19-cv-00155-RRB Document 17 Filed 12/20/19 Page 8 of 10

3:19-cv-155-RRB, Hines v. Axelsson
Screening Order Re: First Amended Complaint
Page 9 of 10
Axelsson are approved to proceed. Due to ongoing litigation in state court and the
Younger doctrine, the Court must abstain from claims against Defendants Dye,
Hoffert, Doe, and Cicotte.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	Mr. Hines’s Claim 1 alleging retaliation against Defendant Axelsson is
approved to proceed.
2. 	Claims 2–5 alleging retaliation by Defendants Dye, Hoffert, Doe, and Cicotte
are dismissed without prejudice, because the Court must abstain from
hearing these claims under the Younger doctrine. Mr. Hines may refile these
claims after the close of litigation in state court.
3. 	Mr. Hines has until January 21, 2019 to file either:
a. 	Notice of Intent to Proceed on Claim 1 only, which informs the Court
that Mr. Hines wishes to proceed solely on Claim 1 against Defendant
Axelsson; or
b. 	Amended Complaint, in which Mr. Hines files restating Claim 1 against
Defendant Axelsson in its entirety, and states revised claims against
other 	or 	different 	defendants 	to 	the 	Court 	after 	correcting 	the
deficiencies identified in this order. 	Mr. Hines should not allege any
claims currently being litigated in state court.
4. 	Any Amended Complaint must be on this Court’s form, which is being
provided to Mr. Hines with this order. 	An amended complaint replaces the
Case 3:19-cv-00155-RRB Document 17 Filed 12/20/19 Page 9 of 10

3:19-cv-155-RRB, Hines v. Axelsson
Screening Order Re: First Amended Complaint
Page 10 of 10
prior complaint in its entirety.21 	If Mr. Hines elects to file an amended
complaint, Mr. Hines must state all of the claims he seeks to bring, including
Claim 1. 	Any claims not included in 	the amended complaint 	will be
considered waived.
5. 	If Mr. Hines does not file either a Notice of Intent to Proceed on Claim 1 or
an Amended Complaint on the Court form by January 21, 2019, the matter
will proceed under the current Amended Complaint on Claim 1 only.
6. 	At all times, Mr. Hines 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
this case under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
7. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to send Mr. Hines the following forms with this
Order: 	(1) form PS01, with “SECOND AMENDED” written above the title
“Prisoner’s 	Complaint 	Under 	the 	Civil 	Rights 	Act 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1983;”
(2) PS21 Pro Se Notice; and (3) form PS23, Notice of Change of Address.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska this 20th day of December, 2019.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
Senior United States District Judge
21 Local Civil Rule 15.1.
Case 3:19-cv-00155-RRB Document 17 Filed 12/20/19 Page 10 of 10