Carter v. The State of Alaska

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On January 9, 2024, self-represented litigant Legacy Carter (“Plaintiff”) filed a
lawsuit against the Alaska Office of Children’s Services and another lawsuit against
the State of Alaska as captioned above. The Court has screened both cases pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. Upon review, the Court has previously
addressed and dismissed nearly identical claims brought by Plaintiff against these
Defendants based on events that allegedly occurred while Plaintiff was in state foster
care.1
A court may on its own initiative dismiss a case on preclusion grounds where
the records of that court show that a previous action covering the same subject matter
and parties has been dismissed. If a case is dismissed with prejudice, then a new
1 See Carter v. State of Alaska, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00126-SLG, Docket 1 (Complaint), Docket
6 (Screening Order dismissing complaint with leave to amend); Docket 7 (Order of Dismissal for
failure to prosecute).
LEGACY CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN’S
SERVICES,
THE STATE OF ALASKA,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:24-cv-00012-SLG
Case No. 3:24-cv-00013-SLG
Case 3:24-cv-00013-SLG Document 5 Filed 03/25/24 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 3:24-cv-00012-SLG, Carter v. Office of Children’s Services
Case No. 3:24-cv-00013-SLG, Carter v. State of Alaska
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 3
case raising the same issues cannot proceed, because a dismissal with prejudice is
considered an “adjudication on the merits.”2 Once a plaintiff’s claim is adjudicated,
that plaintiff is precluded from bring the same claim again against the same
defendant(s) or those in privity with the defendant(s).3 And a case may be dismissed
as frivolous if it “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.”4
Finally, Plaintiff has failed to cure deficiencies in previous cases despite
repeated opportunities. The Court takes judicial notice5 of the following cases Plaintiff
has filed in the District of Alaska:
3:23-cv-00126-SLG Carter v. SOA, et al.
3:23-cv-00199-SLG Carter v. Department of Corrections
3:23-cv-00200-SLG Carter v. The Anchorage Police Department
3:23-cv-00209-SLG Carter v. The District Court of Anchorage
3:23-cv-00214-SLG Carter v. The District Court of Anchorage
3:23-cv-00215-SLG Carter v. Denali Law Group
2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
3 See Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2005) (a final judgment
on the merits bars further claims by parties or their privies based on the same cause of action).
See also Sidhu v. Flecto Co., 279 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2002) (preclusion applies when “the
earlier suit ... (1) involved the same ‘claim’ or cause of action as the later suit, (2) reached a final
judgment on the merits, and (3) involved identical parties or privies.”).
4 Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation and quotation omitted).
5 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 Fed. R. Evid. 201 (a court can take judicial
notice of its own files and records).
Case 3:24-cv-00013-SLG Document 5 Filed 03/25/24 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:24-cv-00012-SLG, Carter v. Office of Children’s Services
Case No. 3:24-cv-00013-SLG, Carter v. State of Alaska
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 3
3:24-cv-00004-SLG Carter v. Anchorage Police Department
3:24-cv-00014-SLG Carter v. Anchorage Police
None of these cases have proceeded past the screening stage, as Plaintiff has
failed to state a viable claim for relief in any of these cases. Although the Court has
previously accorded Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint regarding some of
the allegations, Plaintiff has failed to timely respond in those cases.6 Instead, Plaintiff
files new cases repeating previously plead claims, and the filings contain the same
deficiencies previously identified by the Court. For these reasons, the Court finds that
allowing Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint in either of these cases
would be futile.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. The above-captioned cases are DISMISSED with prejudice.
2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3. The Clerk of Court shall issue a final judgment in each of the above-
captioned cases.
DATED this 25th day of March, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6 See, e.g., Carter v. The Anchorage Police Department, Case No. 3:23-cv-00200-SLG, Docket 5
(Screening Order dismissing complaint with leave to amend); Docket 8 (Second Screening Order
and Order Consolidating Cases); and Docket 10 (Order of Dismissal for failure to prosecute).
Case 3:24-cv-00013-SLG Document 5 Filed 03/25/24 Page 3 of 3