Garner v. State of Alaska

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
KRISTOFFER LEE GARNER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STATE OF ALASKA,
Defendant. Case No. 3:20-cv-00318-RRB
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Kristoffer Lee Garner, an Alaska prisoner representing himself, has
filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the State of Alaska failed
to afford him a speedy trial in his state court criminal case, and a Prisoner’s
Application to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).1
Mr. Garner requests $75,001 in both compensatory damages and in punitive
damages, an order requiring Defendant to “grant complaint,” and a declaration that
“laws be fulfilled as filed and payed.”2
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
Federal law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a civil
complaint filed by a self-represented prisoner who seeks to waive prepayment of
1 Dockets 1, 3.
2 Docket 1 at 8.
Case 3:20-cv-00318-RRB Document 5 Filed 03/04/21 Page 1 of 7

Case 3:20-cv-00318-RRB, Garner v. State of Alaska
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 7
the filing fee. 	In this screening, the Court shall dismiss the case if it 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.3
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.”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
3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b).
4 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
Cir. 2001)).
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)).
Case 3:20-cv-00318-RRB Document 5 Filed 03/04/21 Page 2 of 7

Case 3:20-cv-00318-RRB, Garner v. State of Alaska
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 7
DISCUSSION
“Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides a remedy for deprivations of rights
secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States when that deprivation
takes place ‘under color of any [law] . . . of any State or Territory. . . .’”7 This federal
statute “is not itself a source of substantive rights,” but provides “a method for
vindicating rights [found] elsewhere.”8 Mr. Garner asserts that his right to a speedy
trial has been violated by state action, due to delays caused by the Covid-19
pandemic.9 	Under § 1983, a plaintiff must “plead that (1) the defendants acting
under color of state law (2) deprived plaintiffs of rights secured by the Constitution
or federal statutes.”10
However, a prisoner may not initially bring a claim that collaterally
attacks his state court conviction or sentence under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Where a
§ 1983 action alleges constitutional violations that would necessarily question or
concern the validity of a state court conviction or sentence, the prisoner must
establish that the underlying sentence or conviction has been “reversed on direct
7 Lugar v. Edmondson Oil, Co., 457 U.S. 922, 924 (1982) (citing § 1983); see also
U.S. Const. amend. XIV (“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”).
8 	Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393–94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan,
443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)).
9 Docket 1 at 3–5.
10 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986).
Case 3:20-cv-00318-RRB Document 5 Filed 03/04/21 Page 3 of 7

Case 3:20-cv-00318-RRB, Garner v. State of Alaska
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 7
appeal, 	expunged 	by 	executive 	order, 	declared 	invalid 	by 	a 	state 	tribunal
authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.”11 This rule applies regardless of whether the
prisoner seeks damages or injunctive relief, or who the target of the suit is,12 “if
success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement
or its duration.”13
The Court takes judicial notice14 that, on January 8, 2021, Mr. Garner
entered a guilty plea, and has been convicted and sentenced for felony assault in
the Superior Court for the State of Alaska,15 and he remains in state custody.16
Because Mr. Garner challenges his confinement, Heck v. Humphrey bars his
11 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).
12 The State of Alaska, for instance, is immune from relief from suits under § 1983.
See Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. Chatham County, Ga., 547 U.S. 189, 193 (2006)
(“States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law.”).
However, regardless of anyone Mr. Garner were to name as a defendant, this case must
be dismissed, because neither his conviction or his sentence has been invalidated.
13 Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81–82 (2005).
14 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 Foster Poultry
Farms v. Alkar-Rapidpak-MP Equip., Inc., 868 F. Supp. 2d 983, 990 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
(“Courts routinely take judicial notice of publicly available records . . . 	from other court
proceedings.”) (citing Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.,
498 F.3d 1031, 1039 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2007) (additional citation omitted)); Fed. R. Evid. 201.
15 See State of Alaska v. Kristopher Lee Garner, Alaska Superior Court Case
No. 3AN-19-05941CR. https://records.courts.alaska.gov/eaccess/search.
16 See https://vinelink.vineapps.com/search/AK/Person (currently showing DOC
supervised custody at a halfway house).
Case 3:20-cv-00318-RRB Document 5 Filed 03/04/21 Page 4 of 7

Case 3:20-cv-00318-RRB, Garner v. State of Alaska
Order of Dismissal
Page 5 of 7
claims for relief at this time. 	And before conviction, but while a criminal case is
ongoing, the Younger abstention doctrine prevents federal courts from interfering
in a state case through a § 1983 action,17 even if the plaintiff requests money
damages.18 This Court may only address Mr. Garner’s claim, that he was denied
his right to a speedy trial in state court, if he ultimately is successful in his
appropriate challenges to his conviction or sentence.
To challenge a conviction or sentence, or both, in federal court, one
may file a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 	But first, a petitioner must
either (A) exhaust “the remedies available in the courts of the State” or (B) show
“there is an absence of available State corrective process; or circumstances exist
that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.”19 	To
satisfy the “fairly present” requirement, the petitioner actually must present his or
her federal claim to “each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court
with powers of discretionary review),” so that each court is alerted to the federal
17 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971).
18 Washington v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, 833 F.3d 1048, 1058
(9th Cir. 2016) (extending Younger to suits for damages). 	And a defendant who is in
custody before trial may bring federal challenges, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, but also only
after exhausting the available state court remedies. 	See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit
Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 488 (1973) (allowing petitioner to raise speedy trial claim
prior to trial where he had exhausted available state remedies); Stow v. Murashige, 389
F.3d 880, 886 (9th Cir. 2004).
19 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).
Case 3:20-cv-00318-RRB Document 5 Filed 03/04/21 Page 5 of 7

Case 3:20-cv-00318-RRB, Garner v. State of Alaska
Order of Dismissal
Page 6 of 7
nature of the claim.20 In Alaska, this means that a claim must first be presented to
the Alaska Superior Court. 	If the petitioner disagrees with that result, the claim
should be raised to the Alaska Court of Appeals, and if the petitioner disagrees
with that result, the claim should be raised in a petition for hearing to the Alaska
Supreme Court. 	A federal court may not entertain a habeas petition unless the
petitioner has exhausted all available and adequate state court remedies for every
claim in the petition.21
The Court takes judicial notice that neither Mr. Garner’s state court
conviction, nor the fact or duration of his confinement, have been invalidated.22
Thus, the Court may not review the merits of this case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim
for relief.23
20 Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (citing Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364,
365–66 (1995) (per curiam)).
21 Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982).
22 See 	westlaw.com; 	https://records.courts.alaska.gov/eaccess/search; 	https://
appellate-records.courts.alaska.gov/CMSPublic/Search.
23 This dismissal is not a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which 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.” 	See Washington, 833 F.3d at 1057 (“Because Washington’s Heck-
barred damages claims are thus intertwined with his habeas challenge to the underlying
sentence, we decline to impose a strike with respect to his entire action.”); see also id. at
Case 3:20-cv-00318-RRB Document 5 Filed 03/04/21 Page 6 of 7

Case 3:20-cv-00318-RRB, Garner v. State of Alaska
Order of Dismissal
Page 7 of 7
2. The Application to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee is DENIED as moot.
3. The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment accordingly.
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska this 4th day of March, 2021.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
1058 (“We hold that a dismissal due to Younger abstention, similar to a dismissal under
Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, is not a strike under the PLRA.”).
Case 3:20-cv-00318-RRB Document 5 Filed 03/04/21 Page 7 of 7