Stevens v. F.B.I.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
TY WELLS STEVENS,
Plaintiff,
v.
FBI; STATE OF ALASKA; AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT ALASKA REGION
Defendants.
Case No. 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS
FINAL REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION1
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On September 10, 2019, Ty Wells Stevens, a self-represented litigant, filed
a Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a civil cover
sheet and an Application to Waive the Filing Fee.2
1 Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a District Court may designate a magistrate judge to hear
and determine any pretrial matter pending before the Court. Under the same provision,
a District Court judge may reconsider any pretrial matter where it has been shown the
magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Within fourteen days
after being served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s order, any party may serve and
file written objections. Objections and responses shall not exceed five (5) pages in
length and shall not merely reargue positions presented in motion papers. Rather,
objections and responses shall specifically designate the findings or recommendations
objected to, the basis of the objection, and the points and authorities in support. A
District Court judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate
judge’s order. Reports and recommendations are not appealable orders. Any notice of
appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the district
court’s judgment. See Hilliard v. Kincheloe, 796 F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1986).
2 Dockets 1-3.
Case 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS, Stevens v. FBI, et al.
Final Report & Recommendation
Page 2 of 15
On September 24, 2019, Mr. Stevens filed a First Amended Complaint.3 In
his First Amended Complaint, Mr. Stevens alleged that the under these above
allegations the FBI has deprived him of his freedom of choice.4 He further alleged
that the State of Alaska and Law Enforcement of the Alaska Region have subjected
him 	to 	cruel 	and 	unusual 	punishment.5 	The 	Court 	screened 	the 	order 	in
accordance with federal law, dismissed the complaint for failing to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, and gave leave to amend.
On February 3, 2020, Mr. Stevens filed his Second Amended Complaint.
Once 	again, 	Mr. 	Stevens 	names 	the 	FBI, 	the 	State 	of 	Alaska, 	and 	Law
Enforcement Alaska Region as defendants.6 Mr. Stevens alleges that the FBI and
“government employees” violated his freedoms of privacy and choice. Mr. Stevens
alleges that the FBI and “government employees” have (1) him under surveillance;
(2) impersonated government employees; (3) impersonated medical doctors and
committed malpractice; (4) staged 	court proceedings; (5) tampered with 	his
belongings; (6) invaded his privacy; (7) “fake arrest”; and “evidence tainted.”7
3 Docket 4.
4 Docket 4 at 3.
5 Docket 4 at 4-5.
6 Docket 7 at 2.
7 Docket 7 at 3.
Case 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS, Stevens v. FBI, et al.
Final Report & Recommendation
Page 3 of 15
For relief, Mr. Stevens requests (1) $300,000,000.00 in damages; (2)
$5,000,000.00 in punitive damages; (3) an order requiring defendants to “seize
and desist and provide full disclosure”; and (4) a declaration that “my rights be
returned and all gov employee acting under color of law be penalized.”8 	Mr.
Stevens demands a jury trial.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
Federal law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a civil
complaint filed by a self-represented litigant seeking to proceed in a lawsuit in
federal court without paying the filing fee.9 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; or
(iii) 	seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.10
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.”11 In conducting its review, a
8 Docket 7 at 6-7.
9 See, e.g., Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000).
10 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
11 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
Case 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS, Stevens v. FBI, et al.
Final Report & Recommendation
Page 4 of 15
court must liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff’s pleading and give the
plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.12 	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.13
DISCUSSION
Mr. Stevens alleges civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
the FBI, the State of Alaska, and the Law Enforcement of the Alaska Region. Mr.
Stevens has neither plausibly alleged jurisdiction, nor a viable claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 or any other federal cause of action. 	Accordingly, the Court must
dismiss the action.
Cir. 2001)).
12 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)).
13 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-00247-SLG-DMS Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS, Stevens v. FBI, et al.
Final Report & Recommendation
Page 5 of 15
I. 	Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is “[a] court's power to decide a case or issue a decree.”14 	A
court’s 	subject 	matter 	jurisdiction 	is 	its 	“statutory 	or 	constitutional 	power 	to
adjudicate a case.”15 	As a federal court, this Court has limited subject matter
jurisdiction. 	It possesses “only that power authorized by the Constitution and
statute.”16 This means that the Court has the authority to hear only specified types
of cases.17 	“In civil cases, subject matter jurisdiction is generally conferred upon
federal district courts either through diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or
federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”18
a. Federal Question Jurisdiction
Federal question jurisdiction gives a federal court the authority to consider
cases brought under the United States Constitution or federal statutes.19 In order
for a plaintiff to establish federal question jurisdiction it must be (1) clear on the
14 Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) (definition of “jurisdiction”).
15 Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998).
16 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations
omitted); see also, e.g. A-Z Intern.v. Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003).
17 See, e.g., United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 779, 810 (9th Cir. 2008), citing
DaimlerChrysler v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 (2006); United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d
1005, 1010 (9th Cir. 2000).
18 Peralta v. Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005).
19 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Case 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 5 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS, Stevens v. FBI, et al.
Final Report & Recommendation
Page 6 of 15
face of the complaint an issue of federal law exists and (2) that federal law created
a cause of action for the plaintiff to seek relief.20
Mr. Stevens makes his allegations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides
a cause of action for deprivation of an individual’s civil rights by a state actor.21
Additionally, Mr. Stevens alleges jurisdiction under the following federal statutes:
(1) 18 U.S.C. § 241, Conspiracy against rights; (2) 18 U.S.C. § 242, Deprivation of
rights under color of law; (3) 34 U.S.C. § 12601, which provides the U.S. Attorney
General a cause of action against individuals or agencies who may have violated
the rights of incarcerated juveniles; (4) 34 U.S.C. § 10228, which prohibits
discrimination of criminal justice agencies receiving federal funding; (5) 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000d, et seq., which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or
national origin in federally funded programs.22 	Mr. Steven’s Second Amended
Complaint cites to a federal statute, but it does not allege sufficient facts to
plausibly allege the required elements of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or to state another
viable federal constitutional or statutory claim.23 	Because the Second Amended
Complaint does not plausibly allege facts that, if proven, would constitute a
20 See Louisville & N.R.R. v. Mottley, 219 U.S. 467 (1911); American Well Works Co. v.
Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916); Franchise Tax Board v. Construction
Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983).
21 Docket 7.
22 Docket 7 at 1.
23 See Docket 7.
Case 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 6 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS, Stevens v. FBI, et al.
Final Report & Recommendation
Page 7 of 15
violation of the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute by a state actor that is
redressable by a private citizen in federal court, this Court does not appear to have
federal question jurisdiction over this case.
b. Diversity Jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction requires that the plaintiff has “citizenship which is
diverse from that of every defendant” and an amount in controversy greater than
$75,000.24 This means that this Court could have subject matter jurisdiction over
a 	case 	(including 	one 	involving 	only 	state 	law 	issues) 	when 	the 	plaintiff
demonstrates that he is a citizen of a different state than the citizenship of each of
the defendants.25 However, if any defendant is a citizen of the same state as any
plaintiff, then no diversity jurisdiction exists.26
Mr. Stevens does not formally establish citizenship; but the filings indicate
that Mr. Stevens and the Defendants likely work and/or hold addresses in Alaska
and are likely all Alaska citizens for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.27 Therefore,
this Court does not appear to have diversity jurisdiction over this action.
24 28 U.S.C. § 1332; See Cook v. AVI Casino Enterprises, Inc., 548 F.3d 718, 722 (9th
Cir. 2008) (quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (diversity jurisdiction
requires “complete diversity of citizenship”)).
25 Id. (quoting Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377).
26 Id.
27 See Docket 1.
Case 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 7 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS, Stevens v. FBI, et al.
Final Report & Recommendation
Page 8 of 15
Accordingly, Mr. Stevens has not plausibly alleged jurisdiction in his Second
Amended Complaint. 	The Court does not have jurisdiction over this action;
therefore, the action must be dismissed.
II. 	Failure to State a Claim
A complaint seeking relief from a federal court must be clear. Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instructs that a complaint must contain a “short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the [complainant] is entitled to relief.”
A complaint should set out each claim for relief separately. 	Each claim should
identify (1) the specific harm that Mr. Stevens is alleging has occurred to him, (2)
when that harm occurred, (3) where that harm was caused, (4) who he is alleging
caused that specific harm to him, and (5) what specific law he is alleging was
violated as to that specific claim.
Mr. Stevens has provided an assorted list of allegations against the FBI.
However, Mr. Stevens has not provided a description of the specific harm that
occurred to him. 	Additionally, Mr. Stevens has not alleged when, where, or who
caused that harm. 	Accordingly, Mr. Stevens has not alleged sufficient plausible
details to meet the standard of pleading required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Case 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 8 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS, Stevens v. FBI, et al.
Final Report & Recommendation
Page 9 of 15
III. 	42 U.S.C. § 1983
42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a federal statute that “is not itself a source of substantive
rights,” but provides “a method for vindicating rights [found] elsewhere.”28 To state
a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must “plead that (1) defendants
acting under color of state law (2) deprived plaintiff of rights secured by the federal
Constitution or federal statutes.”29 	To act under color of state law, a complaint
must allege that the defendants acted with state authority as state actors.30 To be
deprived of a right, the defendant’s action needs to either violate a right guaranteed
by the Constitution or an enforceable right created by federal law.31 	Critically, a
plaintiff must establish a causal link between the state action and the alleged
violation of her rights.32 	These essential elements must be pleaded in a § 1983
claim.
28 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443
U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)).
29 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986).
30 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S.
299, 326 (1941)).
31 Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F. 3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995); Blessing v. Freestone,
520 U.S. 329, 340-41 (1997).
32 Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007)
(quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)).
Case 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 9 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS, Stevens v. FBI, et al.
Final Report & Recommendation
Page 10 of 15
a. Government agencies and States are not generally held liable under
42 U.S.C. § 1983; liability requires the violation of a Constitutional
right by a “state actor”.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires that a defendant must be “acting under the color
of state law. 	A defendant has acted under color of state law when he or she has
“exercised power ‘possessed by the virtue of state law and made possible only
because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.’”33
42 U.S.C. §1983 only applies to state actors. 	A state is not a person for
purposes of § 1983.34 Similarly, a governmental agency that is an arm of the state
is not a person for the purposes of § 1983.35 	Allegations made against a federal
actor must be claimed as a Bivens action (which is similar to § 1983 claim, but
applies to federal actors) or under another federal statute that would grant
liability.36 	Similarly to state agencies, Bivens actions cannot be brought against
33 West, 487 U.S. at 49 (quoting Classic, 313 U.S. at 326); see also Tongol v. Usery,
601 F.2d 1091, 1097 (establishing that when state officials are administering a federal
funded program, the state officials are still acting under the color of state law).
34Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat’l Lab., 131 F.3d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that
states are not persons for purposes of § 1983); Will v. Mich. Dep’t. of State Police, 491
U.S. at 64, 71, n.10. (establishing that even if a plaintiff seeks only injunctive relief, a
state has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity and cannot be sued under its
own name under § 1983); see also Stilwell v. City of Williams, 831 F.3d 1234, 1245 (9th
Cir. 2016) (explaining that § 1983 did not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment
immunity and therefore does not allow suits in federal court against states themselves).
35 Sato v. Orange Cty. Dep’t. of Educ., 861 F.3d 923, 928 (9th Cir.) (explaining that
agencies of the state are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from private
damages or suits for injunctive relief brought in federal court), cert denied, 138 S. Ct.
459 (2017).
36 See Bivens v. six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
Case 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 10 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS, Stevens v. FBI, et al.
Final Report & Recommendation
Page 11 of 15
the United States, agencies of the United States, or federal agents in their official
capacities.37
While the FBI performs governmental duties and enforces federal law, the
FBI is not a proper defendant for the purposes of § 1983. 	The FBI is a federal
agency and is not a person under §1983. Therefore, Mr. Stevens has not alleged
a state actor for purposes of § 1983.
b. A state actor must violate a pre-existing constitutional or federal right.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not confer constitutional or federal rights. Instead, it
provides a mechanism for remedying violations of pre-existing constitutional or
federal rights.38 Constitutional rights are those conferred by the U.S. Constitution
to individual citizens. Section 1983 can be used as a mechanism for enforcing the
rights guaranteed by a particular federal statute only if (1) the statute creates
enforceable rights and (2) Congress has not foreclosed the possibility of a § 1983
remedy for violations of the statute in question.39 	Section 1983 does not provide
388 (1971) (which established that injuries to constitutional rights by federal officials
could be resolved by damages suits brought under general federal question
jurisdiction); see also Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (which
counseled federal courts from broad expansions of Bivens claims).
37 See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994); Consejo de Desarrollo Economico de
Mexicali, A.C. v. United States, 482 F. 3d 1157, 1173 (9th Cir. 2007).
38 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).
39 Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340-41 (1997); Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d
1020, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 1999).
Case 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 11 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS, Stevens v. FBI, et al.
Final Report & Recommendation
Page 12 of 15
a cause of action for violations of state law.40 However, where a violation of state
law is also a violation of a federal constitutional right, Section 1983 may provide a
cause of action.41
Mr. Stevens alleges that FBI violated his “freedom of privacy” and “freedom
of choice.”42 This is a vague statement and does not plausibly allege a recognized
constitutional violation. 	Mr. Stevens has not plausibly alleged a constitutional
violation.
The Court also takes judicial notice of Mr. Stevens pending criminal state
court matters State of Alaska v. Stevens, Case Nos.3AN-17-09676CR, 3AN-18-
06723CR, and 3AN-18-08420CR.43 	If Mr. Stevens has concerns about evidence
and law enforcement actions related to these cases, he is likely best served by
raising any related constitutional issues in that forum.
c. 	A plaintiff must show causation between a defendant’s actions and
the violation of their constitutional or federal right.
40 Galen v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 662 (9th Cir. 2007).
41 Lovell v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 90 F.3d 367, 370 (9th Cir. 1996).
42 See Docket 7.
43 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 Headwaters Inc. v.
U.S. Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Materials from a
proceeding in another tribunal are appropriate for judicial notice.”) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201.
Case 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 12 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS, Stevens v. FBI, et al.
Final Report & Recommendation
Page 13 of 15
Importantly in a § 1983 action, a plaintiff must demonstrate causation, or
show how the defendant, acting under color of state law, allegedly violated the
plaintiff’s federal rights. 	A person deprives another of a federal constitutional or
statutory right, “within the meaning of § 1983, ‘if he does an affirmative act,
participates in another’s affirmative act, or omits to perform an act which he is
legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.’”44
The required causal connection “may be established when an official sets in motion
a ‘series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would
cause others to inflict’ constitutional harms.”45
Since Mr. Stevens has not shown a state actor or a federal constitutional or
statutory violation, he has not shown causation. Accordingly, Mr. Stevens has not
plausibly alleged any of the required elements of a civil rights action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, and his action must be dismissed.
IV. 	Futility of Amendment
“It is well-established that a court may dismiss an entire complaint with
prejudice 	where 	plaintiffs 	have 	failed 	to 	plead 	properly 	after 	‘repeated
opportunities.’”46 Previously, the Court provided an explanation of the deficiencies
44 Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007)
(quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)).
45 Preschooler II, 479 F.3d at 1183 (quoting Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743).
46 Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 959 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating “It is well-established
that a court may dismiss an entire complaint with prejudice where plaintiffs have failed
to plead properly after “repeated opportunities.”); citing Neubronner v. Milken, 6 F.3d
Case 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 13 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS, Stevens v. FBI, et al.
Final Report & Recommendation
Page 14 of 15
of the First Amended Complaint and an opportunity to remedy those problems.
The Second Amended Complaint continues to have the same deficiencies. 	The
Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
and does not provide any basis for the federal court to exercise subject matter
jurisdiction. 	As previously discussed, Mr. Stevens’ claims are best addressed in
his ongoing state court matters. Therefore, the Court finds that further amendment
in the federal court would be futile and the Second Amended Complaint will be
dismissed without leave to amend.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Stevens has failed to establish jurisdiction, allege sufficient factual
details to state a claim, or plausibly allege the required elements of a claim under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Stevens claims are futile and must be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. The action is recommended to be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, failure to cure repeated deficiencies in the
pleadings, and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;47
2. The dismissal is without leave to amend in federal court but without prejudice
in order for Mr. Stevens to pursue any viable claims in Alaska state court.
666, 672 (9th Cir. 1993); quoting Semegen v. Weidner, 780 F.2d 727, 730–31 (9th Cir.
1985).
47 Supra FN 1.
Case 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 14 of 15

Case No. 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS, Stevens v. FBI, et al.
Final Report & Recommendation
Page 15 of 15
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a Final Judgment in this case.
DATED this 30th day of March, 2020 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Deborah M. Smith
CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:19-cv-00247-SLG-DMS Document 9 Filed 03/30/20 Page 15 of 15