Haapaniemi v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
BJORN ERIK HAAPANIEMI,
Plaintiff,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT and the U.S.
ATTORNEY,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:23-cv-00278-JMK
ORDER OF DISMISSAL & NOTICE OF STRIKE
On December 8, 2023, self-represented prisoner, Bjorn Erik Haapaniemi
(“Plaintiff”), filed a “Complaint to Remand Criminal Alien Removal to Immigration
Court” against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Office of the
U.S. Attorney for the District of Alaska.1 Plaintiff also filed a civil cover sheet and
a motion to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.2 	Plaintiff claims he did not
include the required copy of his trust fund account statement (or institutional
equivalent) for the six months immediately preceding the filing of the complaint3
because the prison refused to provide the statement.4 However, he also states he
1 Docket 1.
2 Dockets 2–3.
3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
4 Docket 3.
Case 3:23-cv-00278-SLG Document 4 Filed 01/08/24 Page 1 of 6

Case No. 3:23-cv-00278-JMK, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.
Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike
Page 2 of 6
is “not indigent” and has had $2,876.40 deposited in his account in the last six
months—yet he claims he is unable to pay the filing fee in full at this time.5
The right to proceed without prepayment of fees in a civil case is a privilege
and not a right.6 Ordinarily, the Court would provide Plaintiff with 30 days to submit
the required prisoner’s account statement or pay the filing fee. 	However, upon
review, the Complaint lacks an arguable basis in law and fact. 	Therefore, the
Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could
be granted. Further, because the issues raised previously have been ruled upon,
there is an additional basis for dismissal of the present action as it “merely repeats
pending or previously litigated claims.”7
The Court takes judicial notice8 of Plaintiff’s underlying criminal conviction in
United States v. Haapaniemi, Case No. 3:19-cr-00078-RRB-MMS-1, and his
numerous unsuccessful collateral attacks on his conviction.9 In this case, Plaintiff
explains this “immigration complaint” is in response to the Court’s order at Docket
228 in United States v. Haapaniemi.10 The Court’s order at Docket 228 addressed
5 Docket 3.
6 Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 198 n.2 (1993).
7 Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995).
8 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). See also Fed. R. Evid. 201.
9 See United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244,
248 (9th Cir. 1992) (“we may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without
the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue”) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted).
10 Docket 1 at 1.
Case 3:23-cv-00278-SLG Document 4 Filed 01/08/24 Page 2 of 6

Case No. 3:23-cv-00278-JMK, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.
Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike
Page 3 of 6
Plaintiff’s “voluminous immigration-related requests” for the Court to “amend its
criminal judgment, adjudicate [Plaintiff] as deportable alien, and facilitate expedited
removal.”11 The Court denied Plaintiff’s request due to lack of jurisdiction, denied
counsel, and informed Plaintiff the Court would “not entertain any future motions,
writings, filings, proposals, or correspondence on this issue.”12 	A similar request
was also denied by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in Haapaniemi
v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.13
Nevertheless, Plaintiff filed this new action claiming a variety of different
citizenships14 and seeking to be deported from the United States. 	Plaintiff again
seems to be attempting to evade his continued imprisonment by seeking to be
relocated to another country. 	Plaintiff’s arguments otherwise are inapposite, and
the Court declines to engage in further analysis. 	Federal courts are not required
to entertain duplicative or redundant lawsuits and may dismiss them as frivolous
or malicious.15 	No other facts or defendants could be substituted to state a
plausible claim for relief. Therefore, this action must be dismissed with prejudice.
When a federal district court dismisses a prisoner’s action at screening, a prisoner
11 Docket 1-2; United States v. Haapaniemi, Case No. 3:19-cr-00078-RRB-MMS-1, Docket 228.
12 United States v. Haapaniemi, Case No. 3:19-cr-00078-RRB-MMS-1, Docket 228.
13 Case No. 2:22-cv-811-MTL-CBD (D. Az.).
14 Plaintiff claims he is, or at some point has been, a citizen of Ireland, Norway, and the British
Virgin Islands.
15 See, e.g., Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (noting that courts may dismiss under
§ 1915 a complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims).
Case 3:23-cv-00278-SLG Document 4 Filed 01/08/24 Page 3 of 6

Case No. 3:23-cv-00278-JMK, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.
Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike
Page 4 of 6
plaintiff must be given a strike.16 	After three strikes, a prisoner plaintiff may no
longer bring suits in federal courts without prepayment of the filing fee unless the
prisoner can demonstrate an “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”17
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.18
“Every paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or
frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources. A part of the
Court’s responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that
promotes the interests of justice.”19 	Under Rule 11, when a party, even one who
is self-represented, presents a pleading to the court they must certify “that to the
best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry
reasonable 	under 	the 	circumstances 	the 	claims, 	defenses, 	and 	other 	legal
contentions are warranted by existing law or nonfrivolous argument” and “the
factual contentions have evidentiary support.”20 	Under Local Civil Rule 11.2, the
Court is well within its power to impose sanctions for rules violations, including
16 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (self-represented prisoners must receive a “strike” if the case is dismissed
“as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”).
17 Id. 	See also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2007) (addressing
imminent danger exception).
18 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.
19 In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989) (per curiam).
20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2)–(3).
Case 3:23-cv-00278-SLG Document 4 Filed 01/08/24 Page 4 of 6

Case No. 3:23-cv-00278-JMK, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.
Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike
Page 5 of 6
fines, costs, and attorney’s fees awards. 	Beyond these rules-based options, a
federal district court possess inherent powers to manage their own affairs in order
to achieve orderly dispositions.21 	This includes fashioning sanctions for conduct
that abuses the judicial process or is in bad faith.22
The Court cautions Plaintiff against filing any future claims for which he lacks
a sufficient legal or factual basis. 	“Flagrant 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.”23
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	This case is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous.
2. 	All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3. 	This dismissal counts as a STRIKE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).24
4. 	After three strikes, a prisoner plaintiff may no longer bring suits in
federal 	courts 	without 	prepayment 	of 	the 	filing 	fee 	unless 	the 	prisoner 	can
demonstrate an “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”25
5. 	The Clerk of Court shall issue a final judgment.
21 America Unites for Kids v. Rousseau, 985 F.3d 1075, 1088 (9th Cir. 2021).
22 Id.
23 De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148.
24 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) requires that self-represented prisoners receive a “strike” if the case is
dismissed “as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.”
25 See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051–52 (9th Cir. 2007) (addressing imminent
danger exception for the first time in the Ninth Circuit).
Case 3:23-cv-00278-SLG Document 4 Filed 01/08/24 Page 5 of 6

Case No. 3:23-cv-00278-JMK, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.
Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike
Page 6 of 6
6. 	The 	docket 	shall 	reflect 	that 	the 	Court, 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3), has considered whether an appeal of this decision would be taken in
good faith and certifies that an appeal would not be taken in good faith for the
reasons stated in the order and because there is no arguable factual or legal basis
for an appeal.
DATED this 8th day of January, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:23-cv-00278-SLG Document 4 Filed 01/08/24 Page 6 of 6