Redfox v. Jones et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA
WYATT N. REDFOX,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDON JONES, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT [Docket 18]
I. 	PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
After Wyatt N. Redfox, representing himself while incarcerated, filed his
initial Complaint, an Application to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee, and the
required certified prison account statement, the Court screened the case as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1
In its first Screening Order, the Court explained that, to state a claim for relief
for the denial of access to the courts, a plaintiff must be able to state facts showing
that he or she suffered an actual injury; that is, the plaintiff must show “actual
prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to
meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.”2 Mr. Redfox was “permitted to re-file
1 Dockets 1, 2, 9, 10.
2 Docket 10 at 4 (quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996)).
Case 3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS Document 20 Filed 08/31/21 Page 1 of 10

Redfox v. Jones, et al.
3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS
R&R re: Second Amended Complaint 	Page 2
this claim, if it applies to him, stating the actual injury he suffered as a result of a
specific action by an individual.”3
Mr. Redfox was informed of the requirements for stating a claim for relief
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and was permitted to amend on the
Court’s form, which was sent to him with the Screening Order.4 	Mr. Redfox was
informed that an “amended complaint will entirely replace the initial Complaint,”
and that “[a]ny claims not included in an amended complaint are waived.”5
On May 25, 2021, Mr. Redfox filed an Amended Complaint, albeit not on the
Court’s form,6 followed by a motion for a laptop, and a motion for service.7 	The
Court again screened the pleading, as required, and issued its Second Screening
Order on July 13, 2021.8 In the Second Screening Order, the Court explained that
prisoners do not have a “separate constitutional entitlement” to specific prison
3 Id. at 4. Mr. Redfox was also told of other deficiencies in the Complaint, id. at 5, which
were not brought in the Second Amended Complaint, now before the Court.
4 Id. at 6-8 (citations omitted).
5 Id. at 7-8 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; Local Civil Rule 15.1).
6 Docket 12.
7 Dockets 13, 15.
8 Docket 17; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 	Mr. Redfox’s motions were denied in
the order.
Case 3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS Document 20 Filed 08/31/21 Page 2 of 10

Redfox v. Jones, et al.
3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS
R&R re: Second Amended Complaint 	Page 3
grievance procedures, and a prison official’s handling of an inmate’s grievances,
without more, cannot form a basis for liability under § 1983.9
The Court addressed the federal constitutional right to access the courts,
again explaining that prison officials may select the methods to ensure that
prisoners have the ability to file suit.10 	The Court reminded Mr. Redfox that he
must show that he suffered actual prejudice, as previously explained.11
Mr. Redfox was again told how to state a claim under Federal Civil Rule 8,
and was permitted to file a Second Amended Complaint on the Court’s form,12
again being reminded that any “amended complaint will entirely replace the initial
Complaint,” and that “[a]ny claims not included in an amended complaint are
waived.”13
II. 	SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
In Mr. Redfox’s Second Amended Complaint, filed on August 17, 2021, he
brings claims against Brandon Jones, former Superintendent of the Anchorage
9 Docket 17 at 5 (quoting Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation
omitted); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988) (order) (no due process right
to a prison grievance procedure, and failure to process inmate grievances is not a due
process violation)).
10 Id. at 5-6 (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 346).
11 Id. at 6 (citations omitted). Additional deficiencies explained to Mr. Redfox, id. at 6-7,
involved claims which were not brought in the Second Amended Complaint, now at issue.
12 Id. at 7-9.
13 Id. at 8-9 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; Local Civil Rule 15.1).
Case 3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS Document 20 Filed 08/31/21 Page 3 of 10

Redfox v. Jones, et al.
3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS
R&R re: Second Amended Complaint 	Page 4
Correctional 	Complex, 	in 	his 	official 	capacity[,] 	for 	injunctive 	relief; 	Samual
Medlock, Facility Standards Officer, in his official capacity[,] for injunctive relief;
and “Jane Doe ‘C.O. Hodges,’” in her personal capacity[,] for money damages.14
In Claim 1, Mr. Redfox alleges that, on September 18, 2020, Brandon Jones
violated his right to meaningful access to legal reference materials. 	Mr. Redfox
asserts that he submitted an appeal to the Superintendent on September 15, 2020,
requesting “4 computers on unit with Microsoft Office to prepare legal documents,
email to send documents to court and related parties, and a digital Portable
Document 	Format 	(P.D.F.) 	with 	18 	minimal 	law 	books 	under 	22 	A.A.C.
05.540(a).”15 Mr. Redfox states that his “Appeal Screening of [his] grievance was
denied as ‘not a grievable topic,’ and [that it] otherwise stipulate[ed] [to] Samual
Medlock’s … acts to styme [sic] [his] request for relief to address the technical
difficulties of the digital law library to minimize legal injury to prisoner Constitutional
Rights to meaningful access to court and court reference materials.”16
In Claim 2, Mr. Redfox states that, on September 12, 2020, his right to
meaningful access to legal reference materials was violated by Samual Medlock,
who responded to his grievance, as described in Claim 1, as “‘not a grievable
issue,’ and claimed that [Mr. Redfox] ha[d] not submitted the ‘grievance form [ ]
14 Docket 18 at 1-2.
15 Id. at 3.
16 Id.
Case 3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS Document 20 Filed 08/31/21 Page 4 of 10

Redfox v. Jones, et al.
3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS
R&R re: Second Amended Complaint 	Page 5
completely,’ and [gave] him 3 days to submit a Screening Appeal on the issue of
the digital law library’s technical defects and [his] requested remedies.”17 	Mr.
Redfox again requests “relief to address the technical difficulties of the digital law
library to minimize legal injury to prisoner Constitutional Rights to meaningful
access to court and court reference materials.”18
In Claim 3, Mr. Redfox asserts that, on August 16, 2020, his right to
meaningful access to legal reference materials was violated by “Jane Doe ‘C.O.
Hodges,’” after he “submitted a ‘Request for Interview’ to ‘standards’ requesting to
have 4 computers on the Unit where prisoners interact out of their cells.”19 	Mr.
Redfox 	requested 	that 	the 	computers 	include 	the 	functions 	and 	materials
described in the first two claims for relief, with a more detailed list of materials, “to
supplement the technical internet difficulties making meaningful access to court
materials impossible, and minimize an inadequate law library possibility. However,
… C.O. Hodges ripped documents around 11:16 PM … frustrating or impeding
[the] relief request.”20
17 Id. at 4.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 5.
20 Id.
Case 3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS Document 20 Filed 08/31/21 Page 5 of 10

Redfox v. Jones, et al.
3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS
R&R re: Second Amended Complaint 	Page 6
III. 	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
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.21
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.”22 	In conducting its
review, a court must liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff’s pleading and
give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.23 Before a court may dismiss any portion
of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the
21 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b).
22 	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)).
23 	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)).
Case 3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS Document 20 Filed 08/31/21 Page 6 of 10

Redfox v. Jones, et al.
3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS
R&R re: Second Amended Complaint 	Page 7
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.24 The Court has provided such opportunities to Mr. Redfox.
IV. 	ANALYSIS
For the reasons explained below, this Court concludes that Mr. Redfox is
unable to state a claim for relief for the violation of his right to meaningful access
to the courts, and that this case should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts,
under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, to litigate their claims “without active
interference by prison officials.”25 That right, however, is the right to bring a court
claim, and is limited to criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights actions.26
The right of access to the courts “does not guarantee inmates the wherewithal to
transform themselves into litigating engines capable of filing everything from
shareholder derivative actions to slip-and-fall claims.”27
24 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)).
25 Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis original), overruled
on other grounds as stated in Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1209 n.6 (9th Cir. 2015).
26 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996).
27 Id. at 355.
Case 3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS Document 20 Filed 08/31/21 Page 7 of 10

Redfox v. Jones, et al.
3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS
R&R re: Second Amended Complaint 	Page 8
To successfully bring a claim, the plaintiff must have suffered an actual injury
by being denied access to the courts.28 	Further, “[a] plaintiff may not pursue a
claim for denial of access to the courts based merely on the failure of staff to
respond to his grievances in a particular way or based on the rejection of his
grievances; prisoners have no constitutional rights to the handling of grievances in
any particular manner.”29
Although prisoners have a federal constitutional right to access the courts,30
prison officials may select the method to ensure that prisoners can file suit.31 The
right to court access, for instance, “requires prison authorities to assist inmates in
the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with
adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.”32
A prisoner contending that his right of access to the
courts was violated because of inadequate access to a
law library must establish two things: First, he must show
that the access was so limited as to be unreasonable.
Second, 	he 	must 	show 	that 	the 	inadequate 	access
28 Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002); Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351.
29 Miller v. as Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 2021 WL 3216460, at *2 (D. Nev. July 28,
2021) (slip op.) (citing Mann v. Adams, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d
850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003)).
30 Entler v. Gregoire, 872 F.3d 1031, 1039 (9th Cir. 2017); see also Rhodes v. Robinson,
408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2005).
31 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. at 346.
32 Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977).
Case 3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS Document 20 Filed 08/31/21 Page 8 of 10

Redfox v. Jones, et al.
3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS
R&R re: Second Amended Complaint 	Page 9
caused him actual injury, i.e., show a “specific instance
in which [he] was actually denied access to the courts.”33
Despite the explanations in the Court’s two previous orders, Mr. Redfox has
not asserted that he has suffered any legal consequences from law library
inadequacies “such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.”34
Instead, Mr. Redfox states that he wishes to “minimize legal injury” to prisoners’
rights,35 	and 	to 	“minimize 	an 	inadequate 	law 	library 	possibility.”36 	These
generalized possibilities do not rise to the level of a constitutional claim.
Although the Court need not, therefore, reach the question of whether
access to the courts was so limited as to be unreasonable, the Court takes judicial
notice37 that the several lawsuits brought in federal and state court by Mr. Redfox
indicate that his access has not been so limited.38
33 Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 1994) (“As in this case, the district court
considering the inmate’s claim may find it more convenient to address the adequacy of
the allegation or showing of actual injury prior to deciding whether the access was
adequate.” Id. at n. 2) (citation omitted).
34 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. at 349.
35 Docket 18 at 3, 4.
36 Id. at 5.
37 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.”) (citation omitted); see also Fed. R.
Evid. 201.
38 See Redfox v. Klein, et al., 3:21-cv-00143-JMK; Redfox v. State of Alaska, 3:21-cv-
00095-RRB; Redfox v. Doe, et al., 3:21-cv-00004-SLG-MMS; see also Wyatt N. Redfox
Case 3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS Document 20 Filed 08/31/21 Page 9 of 10

Redfox v. Jones, et al.
3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS
R&R re: Second Amended Complaint 	Page 10
VI. CONCLUSION
Therefore, this Court recommends that this case be DISMISSED, under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
DATED this 31st day of August, 2021, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Matthew M. Scoble
MATTHEW M. SCOBLE
United States Magistrate Judge
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Any party may file written objections with the court no later than CLOSE OF
BUSINESS, SEPTEMBER 14, 2021. 	Such a document should be captioned
“Objections 	to 	Final 	Report 	and 	Recommendations.” 	Response(s) 	to 	the
objections shall be filed on or before CLOSE OF BUSINESS on SEPTEMBER 21,
2021. 	Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.
1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
v. State of Alaska, 4BE-21-00220CI (6/23/21 application for post-conviction relief,
referencing criminal case number 4EM-18-207CR); Wyatt N. Redfox v. State of Alaska,
4BE-21-00089CI (3/30/21 application for post-conviction relief, referencing criminal case
number 4EM-18-00050CR).
Case 3:21-cv-00005-SLG-MMS Document 20 Filed 08/31/21 Page 10 of 10