Thiele v. Hough et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
RAYMOND A. THIELE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Lieutenant HARRY MOORE; Sergeant
GWEN HELMS; and GLADYS
HENDRICKS,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:18-cv-00186-RRB
DECISION AND ORDER ON
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF FOURTH
AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Dockets 56 & 57)
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal of Fourth
Amended Complaint at Dockets 56 and 57. The motion is opposed, in part.1 Oral argument
was not requested and was not necessary to the Court’s decision. For the reasons described
in this order, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Raymond A. Thiele, a self-represented prisoner in the custody of the
Alaska Department of Corrections (“DOC”), has filed this civil rights action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against DOC officers Lieutenant Harry Moore and Sergeant Gwen
1 Docket 59 (Opposition); Docket 61 (Reply). As this order explains, Plaintiff does not oppose
dismissal of Defendant Moore.
Case 3:18-cv-00186-RRB Document 63 Filed 10/18/22 Page 1 of 6

Thiele v. Hough, et al. 	Case No. 3:18-cv-00186-RRB
Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal of Fourth Amended Complaint 	Page 2
Helms, as well as DOC employee Gladys Hendricks. Thiele’s Fourth Amended Complaint
alleges that on or about June 6, 2017, Defendants violated his First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights by unlawfully opening a letter from his lawyer outside of his presence.2
Specifically, Thiele’s Complaint alleges the following regarding each defendant:
• 	Gladys Hendricks. 	Thiele alleges that Hendricks was the mailroom clerk at the
time of the alleged incident. 	He alleges that on or about June 6, 2017, Hendricks
opened a letter from Thiele’s attorney outside of Thiele’s presence, read the letter,
then delivered it to Thiele. Thiele alleges that he refused to accept delivery of the
letter and asked to speak to Lt. Moore and Sgt. Helms about the incident.3
• 	Lt. Harry Moore. Thiele alleges that Moore was the shift lieutenant on duty at the
time of the mail incident and that Thiele spoke to him about it soon afterward. He
alleges that Moore “knew of the multitude of issues I was having in regards to my
mail and that many of my rights were being denied” but “chose not to stop it.”4
Thiele’s Complaint does not allege that Lt. Moore was directly involved in the
alleged unlawful opening of Thiele’s legal mail at issue.
• 	Sgt. Gwen Helms. Thiele alleges that Helms was the standards sergeant on duty at
the time and that he spoke to her about the mail incident soon afterward. 	Thiele
alleges that Helms “knew of the multitude of issues I was having in regards to my
2 Docket 54 (Fourth Amend. Compl.). Thiele’s original complaints included additional claims, but
the Court previously granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all but one claim: 	that
Defendants opened a letter from his attorney outside Thiele’s presence (Adverse Action 12).
3 Docket 54 at 3–4. Thiele’s Complaint still refers to Hendricks as “JD #11.”
4 Docket 54 at 3–4.
Case 3:18-cv-00186-RRB Document 63 Filed 10/18/22 Page 2 of 6

Thiele v. Hough, et al. 	Case No. 3:18-cv-00186-RRB
Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal of Fourth Amended Complaint 	Page 3
mail and that many of my rights were being denied” but “chose not to stop it.”5 As
with Lt. Moore, Thiele’s Complaint does not allege that Sgt. Helms was directly
involved in the opening of Thiele’s legal mail at issue in this action.
Thiele’s Complaint seeks $10,000 in compensatory damages, $25,000 in
punitive damages for each defendant, a declaratory judgment that the opening of his legal
mail was unlawful and violated his rights, and any other just relief.6
Defendants now move for dismissal of Thiele’s claims against Lt. Moore and
Sgt. Helms for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires all complaints to
include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.”7 If a particular claim “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” a
defendant may move to dismiss the claim under Rule 12(b)(6).8 The court must “accept as
true all well-pleaded allegations of material fact, and construe them in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party.”9 To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6),
“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face.’”10
5 Docket 54 at 3–4.
6 Docket 54 at 7.
7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
9 Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010).
10 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)).
Case 3:18-cv-00186-RRB Document 63 Filed 10/18/22 Page 3 of 6

Thiele v. Hough, et al. 	Case No. 3:18-cv-00186-RRB
Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal of Fourth Amended Complaint 	Page 4
But 	at 	the 	same 	time, 	complaints 	filed 	by 	self-represented 	plaintiffs,
including prisoners, are held to “less stringent standards.”11 	District courts have an
obligation, “where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the
pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner any benefit of the doubt.”12
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Lieutenant Moore
Defendants move for dismissal of Thiele’s claims against Lt. Harry Moore
on the ground that Thiele’s complaint does not allege that Moore participated in the
opening of Thiele’s legal mail. 	Defendants assert that Thiele’s complaint alleges that
Moore’s involvement was limited only to a failure to exercise his supervisory authority to
stop the incident from occurring.13 Thiele concedes the validity of Defendants’ assertions
regarding Moore and agrees that the claim against him should be dismissed with
prejudice.14 	Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Thiele’s claim against Lt. Moore with
prejudice.
B. 	Sergeant Helms
Defendants move for dismissal of Thiele’s claims against Sgt. Gwen Helms
on the same ground as they did for Thiele’s claim against Lt. Moore. 	Specifically, they
assert that Thiele’s complaint does not allege that Helms opened Thiele’s legal mail, but
only that Helms was “in a position of authority to stop these incidents from occurring.”
11 Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).
12 Id. (quoting Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)).
13 Docket 57 at 4–5.
14 Docket 59 at 3.
Case 3:18-cv-00186-RRB Document 63 Filed 10/18/22 Page 4 of 6

Thiele v. Hough, et al. 	Case No. 3:18-cv-00186-RRB
Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal of Fourth Amended Complaint 	Page 5
Defendants assert that even if Helms had been in “a position of authority to stop these
incidents,” as Thiele alleged, such facts “do not establish personal participation and if
anything only establish an argument under a theory of respondeat superior.”15
As Defendants have correctly noted, § 1983 actions cannot be used to hold
supervisors vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for constitutional
violations committed by those they supervise.16 But supervisors can be held directly liable
under § 1983 for: “1) their own culpable action or inaction in the training, supervision, or
control of subordinates; 2) their acquiescence in the constitutional deprivation of which a
complaint is made; or 3) for conduct that showed a reckless or callous indifference to the
rights of others.”17 Thiele’s allegation that Helms “knew of the multitude of issues I was
having in regards to my mail” but “chose not to stop it” could, if properly pleaded,
constitute “inaction in the . . . supervision or control of subordinates.”
The question, therefore, is whether Thiele’s allegations against Helms are
well-pleaded and “plausible on [their] face.”18 	Because Thiele is a self-represented
prisoner alleging a civil rights violation, the Court must give his complaint every benefit
of the doubt at the motion to dismiss stage.19 In the Court’s view, Thiele’s Fourth Amended
Complaint gives a basic statement of a claim that Helms either failed to properly supervise
a subordinate or else acquiesced to a subordinate’s deprivation of Thiele’s rights. Thiele
alleges that Helms (and two other officers) chose not to halt the unauthorized opening of
15 Docket 59 at 4–5.
16 Hyde v. City of Willcox, 23 F.4th 863, 874 (9th Cir. 2022).
17 Id. (quoting Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1292 (9th Cir. 2000)).
18 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
19 E.g., Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 342.
Case 3:18-cv-00186-RRB Document 63 Filed 10/18/22 Page 5 of 6

Thiele v. Hough, et al. 	Case No. 3:18-cv-00186-RRB
Decision and Order on Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal of Fourth Amended Complaint 	Page 6
his mail, even though they “knew of the multitude of issues I was having in regards to my
mail.” Admittedly, Thiele does not explain what these “issues” were, and their identity is
relevant to his allegation. 	For example, if these “issues” that Helms was aware of were
previous instances of Hendricks or another subordinate opening Thiele’s legal mail outside
his presence, Thiele’s allegation that Helms “chose not to stop” the violations would be
more substantial. But Thiele’s basic allegations, if true, might entitle him to relief under
§ 1983. 	Because the Court must give Thiele “every benefit of the doubt” at this initial
stage, the Court concludes that his basic allegations state a § 1983 claim upon which relief
can be granted.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN
PART with respect to Plaintiff’s claim against Lt. Harry Moore and DENIED IN PART
with respect to his claim against Sgt. Gwen Helms.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Plaintiff’s claim against Lt. Harry Moore is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE;
2. 	Defendants shall file an Answer to Plaintiff’s remaining claims within
30 days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of October, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
Case 3:18-cv-00186-RRB Document 63 Filed 10/18/22 Page 6 of 6