Gladden v. Reigh

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
DAVID GARY GLADDEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTINA L. REIGH,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:19-cv-00099-SLG
ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS AND ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS
Before the Court at Docket 9 is Defendant Christina L. Reigh’s Motion to
Dismiss. 	Also before the Court are the following motions: (1) at Docket 12,
Defendant Reigh’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens, (2) at Docket 15, Plaintiff
Gladden’s Motion for Judge Gleason to Transfer to a “District Court of the United
States” as Judge Gleason has a Conflict of Interest and Is in an Article I Section 8
Clause 9 Tribunal, and (3) at Docket 17, Plaintiff Gladden’s Motion to Accept Late
Filing re [16] Response in Opposition to Motion.1
BACKGROUND
Self-represented litigant David Gary Gladden filed a “Complaint and the
Nature of Quo Warranto” against Christina L. Reigh on April 11, 2019, along with
a civil cover sheet and the $400 filing fee.2 	Mr. Gladden filed an Amended
1 The Court will grant Mr. Gladden’s motion to accept late filing filed at Docket 17, and
has considered his response to the motion to dismiss filed at Docket 16.
2 Dockets 1–3.
Case 3:19-cv-00099-SLG Document 22 Filed 07/26/19 Page 1 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00099-SLG, Gladden v. Reigh
Order re Motion to Dismiss and Pending Motions
Page 2 of 15
Complaint on May 1, 2019 and Ms. Reigh was served on May 16, 2019.3 	Mr.
Gladden 	filed 	a 	Third 	Amended 	Complaint, 	actually 	his 	Second 	Amended
Complaint, on May 24, 2019.4
Mr. Gladden alleges that Ms. Reigh violated his due process rights and he
is entitled to damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.5 The complaints include extensive
discussions of “jurisdictional statements,” various statutes and cases regarding
public officers, and state and national citizenship, suffrage, and the relationship
between the Alaska legislature and the Alaska Bar Association.6 	Mr. Gladden
alleges that Ms. Reigh in her role as a Superior Court Judge for the State of Alaska:
(1) proceeded in the case of Gladden v. Bingman, 3DI-18-00002CI with a “clear
absence of all jurisdiction”; (2) presided in an “Alaska Bar Administrative District
know[n] 	as 	the 	“Third 	Judicial 	District”; 	(3) 	presided 	in 	an 	“Alaska 	Bar
Administrative Court know[n] as “IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE
OF ALASKA”; (4) presided merely as an “undersigned jurist”; (5) had no “‘Oath of
Office as a public Officer’ in the public record”; (6) lacked a bona fide “Civil
Commission”; and (7) ignored all “Actual Notices.”7 	Furthermore, Mr. Gladden
alleges that Ms. Reigh was not a de jure officer, not a de facto officer, had no public
3 Dockets 5 & 8.
4 Docket 10.
5 Docket 5 at 12;
6 Docket 5 at 8–93; see also Docket 10 at 8–122.
7 Docket 5 at 100–102; see also Docket 8 at 122–126.
Case 3:19-cv-00099-SLG Document 22 Filed 07/26/19 Page 2 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00099-SLG, Gladden v. Reigh
Order re Motion to Dismiss and Pending Motions
Page 3 of 15
office, 	and 	was 	“knowingly 	and 	intentionally 	operating 	in 	‘clear 	absence 	of
jurisdiction.’”
In his Third [Second] Amended Complaint, Mr. Gladden additionally alleges
Ms. Reigh discriminated against him as a citizen of Alaska, other Superior Court
Judges have discriminated against him, Ms. Reigh deprived him of his rights to
due process, and Ms. Reigh has taken property and land from him.8 Furthermore,
Mr. Gladden alleges that he has no remedy available to him in a “bona fide
constitutional Court” or from the State of Alaska.9
For relief, Mr. Gladden requests damages from Ms. Reigh for (1) “actual
damages of $22,404.60 to date minus interest and other fees”; (2) general and
compensatory damages to be determined; (3) special damages for “filing fees,
mailing, and process fees”; (4) $2,000,000.00 in punitive damages “to be adjusted
by jury of my peers being ‘citizens of Alaska’ or by a bona fide Article III ‘Judge of
the United States’ exercising the ‘judicial Power of the United States’ if a Bench
Trial for the intentional, willful, and malicious actions against Gladden in ‘clearly
absence of all jurisdiction’ and the damage to the reputation of Gladden and any
future work on Airplanes by REIGH”; and (5) any other relief deemed appropriate
by the Court.10
8 Docket 10 at 125.
9 Docket 10 at 126.
10 Docket 10 at 127.
Case 3:19-cv-00099-SLG Document 22 Filed 07/26/19 Page 3 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00099-SLG, Gladden v. Reigh
Order re Motion to Dismiss and Pending Motions
Page 4 of 15
On May 28, 2019, Ms. Reigh filed a Motion to Dismiss through her counsel
Dario Borghesan.11 Ms. Reigh alleges that Mr. Gladden has failed to state a claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Specifically, Ms. Reigh argues (1)
that she has judicial immunity from Mr. Gladden’s § 1983 action, (2) the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine precludes the Court from granting relief, and (3) Mr. Gladden
has failed to plausibly allege facts that demonstrate a constitutional violation or
violation of federal statute as required by § 1983. 	Mr. Gladden responded by
alleging that Mr. Borghesan has lied to the Court.12 Ms. Reigh replied ceding the
Rooker-Feldman argument, but reiterating that she is judicially immune from this
suit.13
Additionally, Mr. Gladden recorded a lis pendens on Ms. Reigh’s property in
Dillingham, Alaska based on this litigation.14 Ms. Reigh has filed a Motion to
Expunge Lis Pendens, and argues that there is no claim regarding the possession
or ownership of real property in this action.15 Mr. Gladden has not filed a response
to this motion.
11 Docket 9.
12 Dockets 16 & 17.
13 Docket 18.
14 Docket 7.
15 Docket 12.
Case 3:19-cv-00099-SLG Document 22 Filed 07/26/19 Page 4 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00099-SLG, Gladden v. Reigh
Order re Motion to Dismiss and Pending Motions
Page 5 of 15
Mr. Gladden has filed a Motion for Judge Gleason to Transfer to a “District
Court of the United States” as Judge Gleason has a Conflict of Interest.16 	Ms.
Reigh has filed an opposition to that motion, to which Mr. Gladden filed a reply.17
Mr. Gladden has also filed a document entitled “Objection to the Dario
Borghesan Intrusion into this Instant Controversy,18 as well as an “Opposition to
Docket 18 Reply Filed by DARIO BORGHESAN (‘BORGHESAN’) and Docket 18
Should 	be 	Stricken”19 	and 	“Reply 	to 	Docket 	19 	of 	DARIO 	BORGHESAN
(‘BORGHESAN’) Opposition to Doc 13; Objection to Doc 14 and Objection to Doc
15; and, Docket 19 Should be Stricken (‘Reply’).”20
LEGAL STANDARD
I. Jurisdiction and Applicable Law
The Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
because Mr. Gladden alleges a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a cause of action
arising from federal statute.21 	In order to plead a proper § 1983 claim, a plaintiff
must allege plausible facts that if proven would establish each of the required
elements of: 	“(1) a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by
16 Docket 15.
17 Docket 19 (Opp’n); Docket 21 (Reply).
18 Docket 14
19 Docket 20.
20 Docket 21.
21 Docket 5 at 12; Docket 10 at 15.
Case 3:19-cv-00099-SLG Document 22 Filed 07/26/19 Page 5 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00099-SLG, Gladden v. Reigh
Order re Motion to Dismiss and Pending Motions
Page 6 of 15
federal statute, (2) proximately caused (3) by conduct of a ‘person’ (4) acting under
color of state law.”22 Additionally, the Court extends supplemental jurisdiction over
the Alaska state law issue of the validity of a lis pendens against Ms. Reigh in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
II. Standard for Dismissal
A defendant may seek dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 	To withstand a motion to dismiss, “a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.’”23 When reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a
court considers only the pleadings and documents incorporated into the pleadings
by reference, as well as matters on which a court may take judicial notice.24 	A
court “accept[s] factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe[s] the
pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”25 A court “need not
accept as true conclusory allegations that are contradicted by documents referred
22 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986); see
also Pistor v. Garcia, 791 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th Cir. 2015).
23 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
24 Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008)
(citing Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007)).
25 Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 518 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008).
Case 3:19-cv-00099-SLG Document 22 Filed 07/26/19 Page 6 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00099-SLG, Gladden v. Reigh
Order re Motion to Dismiss and Pending Motions
Page 7 of 15
to in the complaint.”26 	In conducting its review, a court must liberally construe a
self-represented plaintiff’s pleading and give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.27
When a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted, a court
“should freely give leave when justice so requires.”28 	But leave to amend is
properly denied as to those claims for which amendment would be futile.29
DISCUSSION
1. Judge Gleason does not have a conflict of interest and retains
jurisdiction over this action.
At Docket 15, Mr. Gladden moves the Court for Judge Gleason to transfer
this case to a “District Court of the United States.” He also maintains that the
District of Alaska is an Article I Tribunal, not an Article III tribunal. 	The United
States District Court for the District of Alaska is an Article III Court.30 	Judge
26 Manzarek, 519 F.3d at 1031 (citing Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d
1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003)).
27 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)).
28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
29 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)).
30 28 U.S.C. § 81A (This statute provides, “Alaska constitutes one judicial district.
Court shall be held at Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan, and Nome.” The
statute is found under part “Organization of Courts, ch. 5 “District Courts”). See also
Exec. Order No. 10867, 25 Fed. Reg. 1584 (February 20, 1960) (terminating the United
State District Court for the Territory of Alaska in anticipation of the transition and
replacement with the United States District Court for the District of Alaska upon Alaska’s
statehood.). The United States District Court for the District of Alaska is and may also
be properly referred to as the U.S. District Court, the District Court of Alaska, the federal
court, etc.
Case 3:19-cv-00099-SLG Document 22 Filed 07/26/19 Page 7 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00099-SLG, Gladden v. Reigh
Order re Motion to Dismiss and Pending Motions
Page 8 of 15
Gleason is an Article III judge presiding in the United States District Court for the
District of Alaska.31 	As long established, “Congress has, under this authority
created the district courts” and Congress “vested each of them with a defined
portion of the judicial power of the Constitution.”32 	Mr. Gladden’s argument that
Judge Gleason does not preside over an Article III tribunal is without merit.33
Insofar as Mr. Gladden requests a transfer of this case to a “District Court of the
United States,” the motion is without merit and will be denied.
Mr. Gladden also seeks Judge Gleason’s recusal; he maintains that Judge
Gleason has a “Conflict of Interest as GLEASON was a Superior Court Judge for
many years having no “Office” established by the Legislature of the State of Alaska
or the Constitution of Alaska.”34 Furthermore, Mr. Gladden takes issue with Judge
Gleason’s membership in the Alaska Bar Association.35
Federal law, passed by Congress, governs when a federal judge must
31 Judge Gleason was nominated to the U.S. District Court on April 6, 2011, confirmed
by the United States Senate on November 15, 2011, and received her commission on
January 4, 2012. PN398—Sharon L. Gleason, 112th Congress, proceedings of the
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary;
https://www.congress.gov/nomination/112th-congress/398.
32 United States v. Union Pacific R. Co., 98 U.S. 569, 603 (1878) (referring to the judicial
power found in Article III of the United States Constitution); see also 28 U.S.C. § 81A.
33 See Glidden Co. v Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962) (discussing the role of tribunals, the
use and limitations of legislation in the creation of such tribunals, and their difference
from Article III courts); see also Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U.S.
833 (1986).
34 Docket 15 at 2.
35 Docket 15 at 1–2.
Case 3:19-cv-00099-SLG Document 22 Filed 07/26/19 Page 8 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00099-SLG, Gladden v. Reigh
Order re Motion to Dismiss and Pending Motions
Page 9 of 15
disqualify herself from a proceeding. 	Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge must
recuse herself if a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would
conclude that her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.36 Actual bias is not
required; “the appearance of impropriety can be a sufficient basis for judicial
recusal.”37 And yet a judge “must not simply recuse out of an abundance of caution
when the facts do not warrant recusal. 	Rather, there is an equally compelling
obligation not to recuse where recusal [is] not appropriate.”38
Judge Gleason has no personal bias or prejudice against either party and
no independent knowledge of the disputed facts, beyond what has been properly
presented to her by each of the parties in their court filings. 	Neither the fact that
she served as a state court judge in the past nor her inactive membership in the
Alaska Bar Association warrants recusal. 	Therefore, the motion for recusal at
Docket 15 will be denied.
2. Attorney Borghesan’s representation of Ms. Reigh is proper.
Mr. Gladden objects to Dario Borghesan’s legal representation of Ms.
Reigh.39 Mr. Borghesan notified Mr. Gladden of his representation of Ms. Reigh.40
36 Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2011).
37 Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 742 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2014).
38 United States v. Sierra Pac. Indus., 759 F. Supp. 2d 1198, 1200–01 (E.D. Cal. 2010).
39 Docket 14; see also Docket 15 at 2–3. Mr. Gladden reiterates his objection to Mr.
Borghesan at Dockets 20 & 21. Mr. Gladden’s briefing at Dockets 20 & 21 has neither
provided new arguments, nor meritorious arguments that alter the Court’s analysis of
Mr. Borghesan’s representation of Ms. Reigh.
40 Docket 14-2.
Case 3:19-cv-00099-SLG Document 22 Filed 07/26/19 Page 9 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00099-SLG, Gladden v. Reigh
Order re Motion to Dismiss and Pending Motions
Page 10 of 15
Additionally, Local Civil Rule 11.1(a)(1) states that “filing a document on behalf of
a party constitutes an entry of appearance on behalf of the party; no separate entry
of appearance is required.” No additional filing or notice is required for an attorney
to represent a party in federal court in the District of Alaska. 	Mr. Gladden’s
objection to Mr. Borghesan’s representation of Ms. Reigh is overruled.
3. The Lis Pendens filed against Ms. Reigh is expunged.
At Docket 7, Mr. Gladden filed a copy of the Notice of Lis Pendens he had
caused to be recorded against Ms. Reigh’s real property.41 A lis pendens is a
“notice, recorded in the chain of title to real property, required or permitted in some
jurisdictions to warn all persons that certain property is the subject matter of
litigation[.]”42 Mr. Gladden’s complaint against Ms. Reigh alleges a violation of his
due process rights. Ms. Reigh’s property is not at issue in this litigation.
Alaska Statute 09.45.940 governs the imposition of lis pendens “in an action
affecting the title to or the right of possession of real property.” 	The Alaska
Supreme Court “strictly construe[s] this statute,” holding that “[a] lis pendens is only
appropriate in cases disputing title or physical possession of real property.”43
41 The lis pendens is filed at Docket 7 with the Court; therefore, the Court assumes
jurisdiction for its expungement. See Orange Cty. v Hongkong & Shanghai Banking
Corp., 52 F.3d 821, 822 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding the district court had jurisdiction to
expunge a lis pendens in accordance with applicable state law).
42 Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).
43 Gladden v. City of Dillingham, No. S-15073, 2014 WL 4952505, at *3 (Alaska Oct. 1,
2014) (citing Asher v. Alkan Shelter LLC, 212 P.3d 772, 782 n. 34 (Alaska 2009),
abrogated on other grounds by Shaffer v. Bellows, 260 P.3d 1064 (Alaska 2011)). The
Court takes judicial notice that Mr. Gladden has previously filed meritless lis pendens
Case 3:19-cv-00099-SLG Document 22 Filed 07/26/19 Page 10 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00099-SLG, Gladden v. Reigh
Order re Motion to Dismiss and Pending Motions
Page 11 of 15
Accordingly, without real property at issue, the recording of a lis pendens is
improper. 	Therefore, the Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens at Docket 12 will be
granted, and the lis pendens at Docket 7 against Mr. Reigh’s property will be
expunged. 	Ms. Reigh may submit a proposed order suitable for recording
consistent with this determination.
4. Mr. Gladden has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, because Ms. Reigh is immune from suit.
At Docket 9, Ms. Reigh filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The parties disagree as
to 	whether 	the 	First 	Amended 	Complaint 	or 	the 	Third 	[Second] 	Amended
Complaint is the operative complaint before the Court.44 The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure allow a party to amend once as a matter course within 21 days of
service.45 	Additional amended complaints must either receive consent from
opposing counsel or leave of the Court, which the Court should give freely.46 	In
the interest of liberal construction for a self-represented plaintiff, the Court has
reviewed both of the complaints. 	But under either complaint, the resolution
remains the same: 	Ms. Reigh is immune from suit and Mr. Gladden’s complaints
must be dismissed with prejudice.
where real property was not at issue in a lawsuit.
44 See Docket 13; See Docket 19.
45 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).
46 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
Case 3:19-cv-00099-SLG Document 22 Filed 07/26/19 Page 11 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00099-SLG, Gladden v. Reigh
Order re Motion to Dismiss and Pending Motions
Page 12 of 15
In order to plead a proper § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege plausible facts
that if proven would establish each of the required elements of: “(1) a violation of
rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute, (2) proximately
caused (3) by conduct of a ‘person’ (4) acting under color of state law.”47 	Ms.
Reigh operates as a state actor in her role as a judge for the Superior Court of
Alaska. 	However, not all state actors are subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Judges have absolute immunity from § 1983 suits for judicial acts.48
Since 1872, the Court has recognized that in order to ensure the proper
administration of justice, a judge “in exercising the authority vested in him, be free
to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences
to himself.”49 	“Judges are immune from damage actions for judicial acts taken
within the jurisdiction of their courts.”50 	A judge will not be deprived of immunity
because the action she took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess
of her authority; rather, she will be subject to liability only when she has acted in
the "clear absence of all jurisdiction."51
47 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Pistor v.
Garcia, 791 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th Cir. 2015).
48 See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 357–58 (1978) (holding that judge’s order
that authorized sterilization of 15-year-old girl without her knowledge was
unconstitutional, but that judge was immune from suit because order was a judicial act.).
49 Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 337 (1872).
50 Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Bradley, 80 U.S. at
347.).
51 Stump, 435 U.S. at 357-58 (quoting Bradley, 80 U.S. at 351.).
Case 3:19-cv-00099-SLG Document 22 Filed 07/26/19 Page 12 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00099-SLG, Gladden v. Reigh
Order re Motion to Dismiss and Pending Motions
Page 13 of 15
When evaluating whether a judge’s act was performed within her judicial
authority, courts focus on whether “(1) the precise act is a normal judicial function;
(2) the events occurred in the judge’s chambers; (3) the controversy centered
around a case then pending before the judge; and (4) the events at issue arose
directly and immediately out of a confrontation with the judge in his or her official
capacity.”52 	“These factors are to be construed generously in favor of the judge
and in light of the policies underlying judicial immunity.”53
Mr. Gladden’s claims center on Ms. Reigh’s ruling against him in his recent
state court lawsuit, Gladden v. Bingman, 3DI-18-00002CI. 	Mr. Gladden filed that
suit in state court seeking to enforce a contract for labor performed on an airplane
against state defendant Mr. Bingman, who counterclaimed for damages to his
airplane.54 	After a bench trial, Judge Reigh found no contract existed, and
awarded Mr. Bingman approximately $22,704.00 in damages for interference,
unsanctioned possession, and unauthorized modifications made to this airplane.55
Judge Reigh also issued a Writ of Assistance due to Mr. Gladden’s repeated failure
to return the logbook for Mr. Bingman’s airplane.56
Following the entry of judgment in the state, Mr. Gladden filed this suit in
52 Ashelman, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075-76 (citations omitted).
53 Ashelman, 793 F.2d 1072, 1076.
54 Docket 5-23.
55 Dockets 5-24 & 10-28.
56 Dockets 5-15 & 10-29.
Case 3:19-cv-00099-SLG Document 22 Filed 07/26/19 Page 13 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00099-SLG, Gladden v. Reigh
Order re Motion to Dismiss and Pending Motions
Page 14 of 15
federal court alleging that his due process rights had been violated by Judge
Reigh. 	After invoking Judge Reigh’s jurisdiction in state court as a plaintiff, Mr.
Gladden now attacks Judge Reigh’s judicial authority. But Judge Reigh’s actions
and decision in Mr. Gladden’s state proceeding are normal judicial functions,
occurred in her courtroom, and were taken in a case pending before her. 	Mr.
Gladden’s claims against Judge Reigh arise directly from her decision against him
as a state court judge. Judge Reigh’s actions are solely arising from her judicial
authority. Therefore, Judge Reigh is immune from suit and Mr. Gladden has failed
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 	Mr. Gladden’s challenges to
Judge Reigh’s determinations in the state court case would be reviewable on
appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court.
The Court further finds that any attempt at amending the complaint to try to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted would be futile, 	Therefore, 	Mr.
Gladden’s complaints and this case must be dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Judge Reigh’s Motion to Dismiss at Docket 9 is GRANTED. The case
is dismissed with prejudice as the defendant is immune from suit.
2. Judge Reigh’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens at Docket 12 is
GRANTED. Ms. Reigh may submit a proposed order to the Court
appropriate for recording the expungement.
3. Mr. Gladden’s Motion to Transfer at Docket 15 is DENIED.
Case 3:19-cv-00099-SLG Document 22 Filed 07/26/19 Page 14 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00099-SLG, Gladden v. Reigh
Order re Motion to Dismiss and Pending Motions
Page 15 of 15
4. Mr. Gladden’s Motion to Accept Late Filing at Docket 17 is GRANTED.
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment accordingly.
DATED this 26th day of July, 2019 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:19-cv-00099-SLG Document 22 Filed 07/26/19 Page 15 of 15