Slaikeu v. Anderson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
JONATHAN SLAIKEU,
Plaintiff,
v.
GLEN ANDERSON et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK
SCREENING ORDER
On September 7, 2022, Jonathan Slaikeu, a self-represented prisoner
(“Plaintiff”), filed a Prisoner’s Complaint under the Civil Rights Act, a financial
statement, and an Application to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee.1 	Plaintiff
subsequently filed a civil cover sheet, a Motion Requesting Transfer to Another
Institution, a Motion Requesting Three Legal Boxes, and a Motion to Appoint
Counsel.2 	The Court now screens Plaintiff’s filings in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
Federal law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a civil
complaint filed by a self-represented prisoner. 	In this screening, a court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action:
1 Dockets 1–3.
2 Dockets 4–7.
Case 3:22-cv-00196-JMK Document 12 Filed 02/16/23 Page 1 of 17

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Screening Order
Page 2 of 17
(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.3
To determine whether a complaint states a valid claim for which relief may
be granted, 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.”4 In conducting its review, a court must liberally construe a self-represented
plaintiff’s pleading and give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.5
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.6 	Futility exists
when “the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could
not possibly cure the deficiency[.]”7
3 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
4 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)).
5 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)).
6 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)).
7 See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986).
Case 3:22-cv-00196-JMK Document 12 Filed 02/16/23 Page 2 of 17

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Screening Order
Page 3 of 17
DISCUSSION
I. 	Complaint
Plaintiff brings suit against employees of the Spring Creek Correctional
Center (“Defendants”) alleging personal injury, negligence, “failure to provide safe
confinement,” and retaliation. 	Plaintiff alleges that on multiple occasions, he was
served raw and moldy food which led to food poisoning, diarrhea, and vomiting.
Plaintiff further alleges he reported the food safety violations, but the DOC failed
to provide “serve-safe training” and failed to “ensure proper safe controlled food
service.”8 	Plaintiff also claims he is being retaliated against for filing a PREA
grievance and for requesting an administrative transfer to another facility.9
II. 	Failure to State a Claim
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. 	Factual allegations must not be speculative; rather, a plaintiff must
plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”10 While a complaint need not,
8 Docket 1 at 5–6.
9 Docket 4 at 1–2.
10 Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678.
Case 3:22-cv-00196-JMK Document 12 Filed 02/16/23 Page 3 of 17

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Screening Order
Page 4 of 17
and should not, contain every precise, factual detail, “unadorned, the defendant-
unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]” are insufficient to state a claim.11
III. 	Civil Rights Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”)
To state a claim for relief under Section § 1983, a plaintiff must allege
plausible facts that, if proven, would establish (1) the defendant acting under color
of state law (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the federal Constitution
or federal statutes.12 To act under color of state law, a complaint must allege that
the defendant acted with state authority as a state actor.13 	To be deprived of a
right, the defendant’s action needs to either violate rights guaranteed by the
Constitution or an enforceable right created by federal law.14 	Section 1983 does
not confer federal constitutional or federal statutory rights. 	Instead, it provides a
mechanism for remedying violations of pre-existing federal rights.15 Section 1983
does not provide a mechanism for remedying alleged violations of state law.16
11 Id.
12 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986).
13 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326
(1941)).
14 Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F. 3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995); Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S.
329, 340–41 (1997).
15 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393–94 (1989).
16 Galen v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 662 (9th Cir. 2007).
Case 3:22-cv-00196-JMK Document 12 Filed 02/16/23 Page 4 of 17

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Screening Order
Page 5 of 17
A. 	Defendant must be acting under color of state law
Defendants 	are 	employed 	by 	the 	Alaska 	Department 	of 	Corrections.
Therefore, Plaintiff has adequately alleged that Defendants were acting under
color of state law. The Court notes Plaintiff also names four “John Joe” defendants.
A plaintiff may name “John” or “Jane” Doe defendants. 	However, it is imperative
that specific actions be attributed to each John or Jane Doe defendant in order to
identify their liability. 	Should any amended complaint pass screening, Plaintiff is
advised that John Doe or Jane Doe defendants cannot be served until Plaintiff has
identified them as actual individuals and amended his complaint to substitute
names for John Doe or Jane Doe.17
B. 	Violation of federal rights
Although Plaintiff brings allegations of 	personal injury and negligence,
construing Plaintiff’s complaint liberally, he appears to be claiming he was not
provided with appropriate meals and was given inadequate medical care when he
became ill. 	Prison officials must provide prisoners with “food, clothing, shelter,
sanitation, 	medical 	care, 	and 	personal 	safety.”18 	However, 	a 	showing 	of
negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth
17 See Booth v. Campbell, 2022 WL 1486756, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 10, 2022).
18 See Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986), abrogated in part on other
grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir.
2000); Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132–33 (9th Cir. 1981).
Case 3:22-cv-00196-JMK Document 12 Filed 02/16/23 Page 5 of 17

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Screening Order
Page 6 of 17
Amendment.”19 As explained below, claims of personal injury and negligence are
more appropriately brought in state court unless the federal court can establish
supplemental jurisdiction over the claims. 	The federal court can hear claims
regarding conditions of confinement, including inadequate medical care under the
Eighth Amendment. However, the “Eighth Amendment requires only that prisoners
receive food that is adequate to maintain health; it need not be tasty or aesthetically
pleasing.”20 	The fact that “the food occasionally contains foreign objects or
sometimes is served cold, while unpleasant, does not amount to a constitutional
deprivation.”21
Plaintiff also brings allegations of retaliation, but as pled, has not provided
sufficient facts to support his claim. The Court now provides the following guidance
to assist Plaintiff in correcting these deficiencies in the event Plaintiff elects to file
an amended complaint.
i. 	Inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment
The government has an “obligation to provide medical care for those whom
it is punishing by incarceration,” and the failure to meet that obligation can
19 Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks & citation
omitted).
20 LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Mendiola-Martinez v. Arpaio,
836 F.3d 1239, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that county’s nutrition policy for pregnant
prisoners did not violate the Eighth Amendment); Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812–13, 813
n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 732 (9th Cir. 2000); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d
1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 1996), amended by 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998).
21 LeMaire, 12 F.3d at 1456 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Foster, 554
F.3d at 813 n.2.
Case 3:22-cv-00196-JMK Document 12 Filed 02/16/23 Page 6 of 17

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Screening Order
Page 7 of 17
constitute an Eighth Amendment violation redressable under § 1983.22 In order to
state a claim under the Eighth Amendment for violations involving medical care, a
prisoner must show that (1) the plaintiff has a serious medical need; (2) the
defendant was deliberately indifferent to that medical need; and (3) the act or
failure to act of the defendant caused harm to the plaintiff.23
A serious medical need is an objective standard and may be found if “the
failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury or the
unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.”24 Indicators of a serious medical need
include: 	“an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and
worthy 	of 	comment 	or 	treatment; 	the 	presence 	of 	a 	medical 	condition 	that
significantly affects an individual’s daily activities; or the existence of chronic and
substantial pain.”25 	In addition to establishing a serious medical need, a plaintiff
also must prove that the defendant was deliberately indifferent to that medical
need.26 	Deliberate indifference is present when a prison official “knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be
aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk
22 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103–05 (1976).
23 Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014).
24 Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (citations and further internal
quotation marks omitted).
25 Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d at 1066 (quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059–60
(9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.
1997)).
26 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).
Case 3:22-cv-00196-JMK Document 12 Filed 02/16/23 Page 7 of 17

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Screening Order
Page 8 of 17
of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”27 	“Deliberate
indifference is a high legal standard. Generally, a difference of medical opinion or
as to two alternative courses of medically acceptable treatment is insufficient to
establish 	deliberate 	indifference.28 	Even 	gross 	negligence 	is 	insufficient 	to
establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.29
A plaintiff must also plead facts that, if proven, would demonstrate that the
act or failure to act of the defendant caused harm to the plaintiff. As pled, Plaintiff
has not provided sufficient plausible factual details to establish that he has a
serious medical need, that Defendant was deliberately indifferent to that need, and
that Defendant’s deliberate indifference caused harm to Plaintiff. 	Therefore, his
allegations are insufficient to support a claim of inadequate medical care under the
Eighth Amendment.
ii. 	Retaliation under the First Amendment
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and
the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.30 	However, a
prisoner’s First Amendment rights are “more limited in scope than the constitutional
27 Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834; see also Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 904 (9th Cir. 2002).
28 Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1029 (1996) (citing
Estelle, 429 U.S. at 107–08).
29 Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990).
30 U.S. Const. Amend. I.
Case 3:22-cv-00196-JMK Document 12 Filed 02/16/23 Page 8 of 17

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Screening Order
Page 9 of 17
rights held by individuals in society at large.”31 Prisoners have a First Amendment
Right to file prison grievances without retaliation.32 To prevail on a claim founded
on retaliation under the First Amendment, a plaintiff must show that: 	(1) he
engaged in a protected conduct; (2) a state actor took some adverse action against
him; (3) the protected conduct was a “substantial” or “motivating” factor behind the
adverse action; (4) the adverse action would chill a person of ordinary firmness
from future exercise of 	First Amendment rights; and (5) the action 	did not
reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.33
Retaliatory motivation is not established simply by showing an adverse
action by the defendant after protected speech. Instead, the plaintiff must show a
nexus between the two.34 Therefore, although the timing of an official’s action can
constitute circumstantial evidence of retaliation—if, for example, an adverse action
was taken shortly after the official learned about an inmate’s exercise of protected
conduct—there generally must be something more than mere timing to support an
inference of retaliatory intent.35 The causal nexus requirement of a retaliation claim
is a “but-for” causation test. 	If the adverse action would have been taken even
31 Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 229, (2001).
32 Id. at 1269.
33 Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567–68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote and citations omitted).
34 Huskey v. City of San Jose, 204 F.3d 893, 899 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that a retaliation claim
cannot rest on “the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, literally, ‘after this, therefore
because of this’”).
35 Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir. 1995).
Case 3:22-cv-00196-JMK Document 12 Filed 02/16/23 Page 9 of 17

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Screening Order
Page 10 of 17
without the inmate’s exercise of protected conduct, the plaintiff cannot satisfy the
causation element of the retaliation claim.36 	To establish a retaliatory motive, a
prisoner “must show that his protected conduct was the substantial or motivating
factor behind the defendant’s conduct.”37 Any amended complaint should identify
(1) the specific harm that Plaintiff is alleging has occurred to him, (2) when that
harm occurred, (3) where that harm was caused, and (4) who he is alleging caused
that specific harm to him.
C. 	State claims
Plaintiff’s 	allegations 	regarding 	personal 	injury 	and 	negligence 	are
considered tort claims, which are grounded in state law and most typically
addressed in Alaska state court. While Section 1983 does not apply to a plaintiff’s
state law claims, if a plaintiff can successfully plead a Section 1983 claim, a federal
district 	court 	may 	exercise 	supplemental 	jurisdiction 	over 	related 	state 	law
claims.38 	As discussed above, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not state a viable
constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	If Plaintiff can successfully plead a
36 Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 260 (2006).
37 Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
38 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, a federal district court may hear state law claims by exercising
supplemental jurisdiction, in cases where federal question jurisdiction already exists and there
are state law claims that derive from a common nucleus of operative facts. However, a federal
district court may also decline to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims, if (1) the state law
claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law, (2) the state law claim substantially
predominates over the federal law claims, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which
it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons
for declining jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Case 3:22-cv-00196-JMK Document 12 Filed 02/16/23 Page 10 of 17

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Screening Order
Page 11 of 17
constitutional 	violation 	under 	federal 	law, 	he 	also 	may 	be 	able 	to 	plead
accompanying 	state 	tort 	claims, 	over 	which 	this 	Court 	may 	then 	exercise
jurisdiction. The statute of limitations for personal injury tort claims in Alaska is two
years.39
IV. 	Motions
Plaintiff requests court-appointed counsel because he has been unable to
find an attorney to represent him, is financially unable to retain counsel, and is
limited due to his reported mental illness.40 	Plaintiff also requests an order
permitting him to have three legal boxes that will be transferred with him.41
A. 	Motion for legal boxes
Plaintiff requests an order from the Court allowing him to keep three legal
boxes in his cell. 	He further seeks an Order requiring the three legal boxes and
one personal box be transferred with him, so he does not lose his files.42 	As an
initial matter, the Court does not generally have jurisdiction to order prison officials
to allow Plaintiff to possess his legal material in his cell.43 Additionally, authorized
deprivations of property are permissible if carried out pursuant to a regulation that
39 Alaska Stat. § 09.10.070.
40 Docket 7.
41 Docket 5.
42 Docket 5.
43 City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams.
United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, (1982).
Case 3:22-cv-00196-JMK Document 12 Filed 02/16/23 Page 11 of 17

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Screening Order
Page 12 of 17
is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.44 Undoubtedly, prisoners
retain 	a 	fundamental 	interest 	to 	access 	the 	courts 	under 	the 	First
Amendment.45 	To establish a violation of the right of access to the courts, a
prisoner must establish that he or she has suffered an actual injury.46 	An “actual
injury” is “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such
as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.”47
While 	Plaintiff 	alleges 	“they” 	are 	retaliating 	against 	him 	by 	taking 	his
“property without seizure reports,”48 his motion for an order regarding his legal
materials does not describe any instances where legal materials were lost or
withheld, that prison authorities otherwise impeded his access to them, or that he
lost opportunity to present a legal claim.49 	Notably, his concerns seem to be the
potential for future loss his files.50 To the extent Plaintiff requires his legal materials
to litigate active habeas corpus, criminal appeals, or civil rights actions, he should
avail himself of the procedures established by the prison to obtain his personal and
44 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).
45 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996).
46 Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349; Madrid, 190 F.3d at 996.
47 Lewis, at 348 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
48 Docket 4 at 2.
49 Docket 5.
50 Docket 5 at 2.
Case 3:22-cv-00196-JMK Document 12 Filed 02/16/23 Page 12 of 17

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Screening Order
Page 13 of 17
legal materials.51 	To the extent Plaintiff seeks relief related to confiscated legal
materials, he must identify which legal materials were taken, who took them, when
they were taken, the reason given for the confiscation, and the reason Plaintiff
needs the legal materials.
Accordingly, 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	at 	Docket 	5 	is 	DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
B. 	Motion to appoint counsel
Although a defendant in a criminal case has a right to assistance of counsel
under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, generally a person
has no federal right to an appointed attorney in a civil action.52 	In “exceptional
circumstances,” a district court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants.53 To
decide whether exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate both “the
likelihood of success on the merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his
claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.”54 	A plaintiff
must plead facts showing he has an insufficient grasp of his case or the legal
51 Cruz v. Savoie, 2021 WL 3021365, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 16, 2021).
52 See Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431, 441, 131 S. Ct. 2507, 2516 (2011) (“[T]he Sixth
Amendment does not govern civil cases.”); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009)
(“Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil actions.”).
53 Rand v. Roland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952
(9th Cir. 1998).
54 Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718
F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)).
Case 3:22-cv-00196-JMK Document 12 Filed 02/16/23 Page 13 of 17

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Screening Order
Page 14 of 17
issues involved and an inadequate ability to articulate the factual basis of his
claims.55
The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s concerns. 	At this stage of the
litigation, this Court cannot evaluate Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits.
Although section 1915(e)(1) permits the Court to request a volunteer attorney, this
Court has no current list of volunteer attorneys from which it may request counsel.
Most importantly, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he is able to articulate his claims
pro se despite the complexity of the legal issues involved, such that this case is
not an “exceptional” one that necessitates the assistance of counsel.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s Motion for Appointed Counsel at
Docket 7 is DENIED. 	However, in the interest of fundamental fairness, the Court
denies this motion without prejudice. This means if any amended complaint does
pass screening, Plaintiff is not prevented from filing a new request for counsel after
Defendants are properly served and have filed an Answer or other response.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient plausible facts to meet the requirements
of Rule 8 of Federal Civil Procedure or a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The 	Court 	grants 	Plaintiff 	the 	opportunity 	to 	file 	an 	amended 	complaint 	in
accordance with the guidance provided above.
55 Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004).
Case 3:22-cv-00196-JMK Document 12 Filed 02/16/23 Page 14 of 17

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Screening Order
Page 15 of 17
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	The Complaints at Docket 1 is DISMISSED for failing to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. The Court grants leave to amend.
2. 	The Prisoner’s Application to Waive Prepayment of 	the 	Filing 	Fee at
Docket 2 is GRANTED. Federal law requires that a prisoner may only waive
prepayment of the fees associated with civil lawsuits.56 The Court cautions
Plaintiff that should he proceed with this suit and sufficiently plead a claim,
the Court will issue a separate order on the collection of the filing fee and
Plaintiff would be obligated to pay the filing fee incrementally until the
$402.00 filing fee is paid in full.
3. 	Plaintiff’s Motion at Docket 5 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4. 	Plaintiff’s Motion at Docket 7 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
5. 	Plaintiff is accorded 30 days to file one of the following:
a. 	Amended Complaint, in which Plaintiff restates his claims to address
the deficiencies identified in this order. An amended complaint should
be on the Court’s form, which is being provided to Plaintiff with this
order. 	An amended complaint replaces the prior complaints in its
entirety.57 Plaintiff need not supply legal research, only the facts that
he alleges in support of an amended complaint. Plaintiff must include
56 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
57 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and Local Civil Rule 15.1.
Case 3:22-cv-00196-JMK Document 12 Filed 02/16/23 Page 15 of 17

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Screening Order
Page 16 of 17
all of the claims he seeks to bring in an amended complaint. 	Any
claims not included in the amended complaint will be considered
waived. 	Any exhibits attached to the amended complaint should be
submitted without alteration by Plaintiff; OR
b. 	Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, in which Plaintiff elects to close and
end this case.
6. 	If Plaintiff does not file either an Amended Complaint or Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal on the Court form by March 17, 2023, this case may be dismissed
with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) without further notice to
Plaintiff. 	This dismissal would count as a “strike” against Plaintiff under
§ 1915(g).58 	A voluntary dismissal does not count as a “strike” under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
7. 	At all times, Plaintiff 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 notice of change of address may result in the dismissal of
58 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 3:22-cv-00196-JMK Document 12 Filed 02/16/23 Page 16 of 17

Case No. 3:22-cv-00196-JMK, Slaikeu v. Anderson et al.
Screening Order
Page 17 of 17
this case under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without
further notice to Plaintiff.
8. 	Each litigant is responsible for keeping a copy of each document filed with
the Court. When a litigant mails a document to the Court, the Court will mail
to the litigant a Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) that will indicate when that
document was filed on the docket and the docket number of the document.
Copies of documents that have been filed with the Court may be obtained
from 	the 	Clerk’s 	Office 	for 	$0.50 	per 	page, 	In 	the 	event 	of 	special
circumstances or serious financial need, a party may file a motion asking for
the cost of copies to be waived or reduced.
9. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff the following forms with this
order: 	(1) form PS01, with “FIRST 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; (3) form PS23, Notice of Change of
Address; and (4) the District Court’s handbook, “R EPRESENTING YOURSELF
IN ALASKA’ S F EDERAL COURT.”
DATED this 16th day of February, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:22-cv-00196-JMK Document 12 Filed 02/16/23 Page 17 of 17