Isler v. Ketchikan Correctional et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
MITCHELL BRADLEY ISLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
KETCHIKAN CORRECTIONAL, et
al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 5:20-cv-00010-RRB
SCREENING ORDER RE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
On September 14, 2020, Mitchell Bradley Isler, a self-represented prisoner,
filed a Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with state court
forms for a Prisoner’s Request for Exemption from the Filing Fee and a financial
statement for an appointment of counsel.1 	The Court screened the Complaint in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915, found that it failed to state a claim, and
dismissed with leave to amend.2 	Mr. Isler filed an Amended Complaint3 and the
Court screens again in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915.4
1 Dockets 1–3.
2 Docket 6.
3 Docket 7.
4 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; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
Case 5:20-cv-00010-RRB Document 9 Filed 03/10/21 Page 1 of 7

Case No. 5:20-cv-00010-RRB, Isler v. Ketchikan Correctional Facility, et al.
Screening Order Re: First Amended Complaint
Page 2 of 7
DISCUSSION
Mr. 	Isler 	has 	alleged 	the 	same 	factual 	allegations 	against 	the 	same
defendants as in the original Complaint.5 In the Court’s prior Screening Order, the
Court explained that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has specific requirements.6 Specifically, a
plaintiff must allege an injury caused by a state actor in violation of a federal
constitutional or civil right. 	In its prior Screening Order, the Court acknowledged
that Mr. Isler may have a constitutional claim for failure to protect, but that he
named 	improper 	defendants.7 	For 	purposes 	of 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1983, 	neither
defendant is a proper state actor. As previously discussed, Ketchikan Correctional
Facility is immune from suit, because of sovereign immunity; and Jason Harris is
a prisoner and private citizen not acting on behalf of the state.8 	In order to
sufficiently state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Mr. Isler will need to name
different defendants.
In his First Amended Complaint, Mr. Isler states: “Mr. Harris should [have]
never been placed on the minimum level with the nonviolent inmates. 	Mr. Harris
or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief; see also
Screening Order, Docket 6 at 1–2 for discussion of the screening requirement.
5 Compare Docket 1 and Docket 7.
6 See Docket 6 at 3–4.
7 Id. at 5–7.
8 Id.
Case 5:20-cv-00010-RRB Document 9 Filed 03/10/21 Page 2 of 7

Case No. 5:20-cv-00010-RRB, Isler v. Ketchikan Correctional Facility, et al.
Screening Order Re: First Amended Complaint
Page 3 of 7
just got out of prison for assault. 	He was a liability risk.”9 	He further alleges
“[Ketchikan 	Correctional] 	Institution 	[violated] 	it’s 	[own] 	policy 	by 	placing 	a
dangerous high classification individual on the lower, low classification individual
had been in several fights.”10
In a Section 1983 action, a defendant may be sued in either an individual or
an official capacity. 	In order for a defendant to be individually liable under
Section 1983, that defendant must personally participate in an alleged rights
deprivation.11 	“In a § 1983 action, the plaintiff must also demonstrate that the
defendant’s 	conduct 	was 	the 	actionable 	cause 	of 	the 	claimed 	injury.”12 	A
defendant sued in her individual capacity may be held liable for money damages.13
In order for Mr. Isler to sue someone in an individual capacity, he must allege facts,
which if proven, would demonstrate that the named defendant (1) personally
participated in failing to protect Mr. Isler from assault and (2) that defendant’s
actions, or lack thereof, caused Mr. Isler’s injury.
A plaintiff may sue a defendant in an official capacity as an alternate way of
pleading a claim against the governmental entity for which that individual is an
9 Docket 7 at 3.
10 Id.
11 Avalos v. Baca, 596 F.3d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 2010).
12 Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008).
13 See Mitchell v. Washington, 818 F.3d 436, 442 (9th Cir. 2016).
Case 5:20-cv-00010-RRB Document 9 Filed 03/10/21 Page 3 of 7

Case No. 5:20-cv-00010-RRB, Isler v. Ketchikan Correctional Facility, et al.
Screening Order Re: First Amended Complaint
Page 4 of 7
officer or employee.14 	A plaintiff suing a defendant in their official capacity is not
required to allege the “named official's 	personal involvement in the acts or
omissions constituting the alleged constitutional violation.”15 	Instead, a plaintiff
must only (1) “identify the law or policy challenged” and (2) “name the official within
the entity who can appropriately respond to injunctive relief.”16 	However, a
defendant sued in their official capacity may not be sued for damages, only for
injunctive relief.17 In order for Mr. Isler to sue a defendant in their official capacity,
he must (1) identify the policy he challenges and (2) demonstrate that that
particular defendant is able to respond to the injunctive relief he requests.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Isler has alleged facts, which if proven to be true, may hold a state actor
liable 	for 	failing 	to 	protect 	Mr. 	Isler 	while 	he 	was 	in 	custody 	at 	Ketchikan
Correctional Center.18 In order to properly raise this claim, Mr. Isler needs to allege
a proper defendant. 	A proper defendant is a state actor—a person acting under
color of state law—who either (1) personally participated, caused, or failed to
14 Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985); Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 27 (1991).
15 Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1127 (9th Cir. 2013).
16 Id.
17 See Will, 491 U.S. at 71 n.10.
18 See Docket 6 at 8; see also Galen v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 662 (9th Cir.
2007).
Case 5:20-cv-00010-RRB Document 9 Filed 03/10/21 Page 4 of 7

Case No. 5:20-cv-00010-RRB, Isler v. Ketchikan Correctional Facility, et al.
Screening Order Re: First Amended Complaint
Page 5 of 7
intervene in the assault, or (2) who has the authority to grant him injunctive relief
from the policy he challenges.
Mr. Isler has not pled the essential elements of a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Mr. Isler’s First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. However, the Court grants Mr. Isler leave to amend.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. The 	First 	Amended 	Complaint 	at 	Docket 	7 	is 	DISMISSED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The Court grants leave to amend.
2. Mr. Isler has until April 12, 2021, to file one of the following:
a. Amended Complaint, in which Mr. Isler would resubmit his claims
to the Court after correcting the deficiencies in accordance with
this order. 	An amended complaint would replace the current
complaint in its entirety.19
b. Notice 	of 	Voluntary 	Dismissal, 	which 	would 	inform 	the 	Court
Mr. Isler no longer wishes to pursue his lawsuit and would dismiss
the entire action.
3. Any Amended Complaint should be on this Court’s form, which is being
provided to Mr. Isler with this Order. 	As discussed above, an amended
complaint will replace the prior complaint in its entirety.20 Mr. Isler must include
19 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; Local Civil Rule 15.1.
20 Local Civil Rule 15.1.
Case 5:20-cv-00010-RRB Document 9 Filed 03/10/21 Page 5 of 7

Case No. 5:20-cv-00010-RRB, Isler v. Ketchikan Correctional Facility, et al.
Screening Order Re: First Amended Complaint
Page 6 of 7
all of the claims he seeks to bring. 	Any claims not included in the amended
complaint will be considered waived.
4. If Mr. Isler does not file either an Amended Complaint or Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal on the Court form by April 12, 2021, this case will be DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This dismissal will count
as a “strike” against Mr. Isler under § 1915(g).21
5. The Prisoner’s Request for Exemption from the Filing Fee, which this Court
construes as a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, at Docket 2 is GRANTED.
In federal court, a prisoner may not be fully exempted from the filing fee.
Instead, the prepayment is waived and the fee is collected incrementally from
the prisoner’s trust account. 	Mr. Isler is cautioned that should a proper claim
be presented to the Court in his Second Amended Complaint, a separate order
directing incremental collection of the filing fee will follow.
6. At all times, Mr. Isler 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
21 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prohibits a prisoner who files more than three actions or appeals
in any federal court in the United States which are dismissed as frivolous or malicious or
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, from bringing any other
actions without prepayment of fees unless the prisoner can demonstrate that he or she is
in “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
Case 5:20-cv-00010-RRB Document 9 Filed 03/10/21 Page 6 of 7

Case No. 5:20-cv-00010-RRB, Isler v. Ketchikan Correctional Facility, et al.
Screening Order Re: First Amended Complaint
Page 7 of 7
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. Isler 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) form PS09, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; and (3) form PS23, Notice of
Change 	of 	Address; 	(4) 	the 	District 	Court’s 	handbook, 	“REPRESENTING
YOURSELF IN ALASKA’ S F EDERAL C OURT ”; and (5) a copy of the Court’s prior
Screening Order at Docket 6.
DATED this 10th day of March, 2021, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
Case 5:20-cv-00010-RRB Document 9 Filed 03/10/21 Page 7 of 7