Bradshaw v. Dahlstrom et al

Filing 53

ORDER adopting 51 Report and Recommendations. Claims 1, 2, and 3 are DISMISSED AS MOOT as to Defendants Winkelman and Dunleavy. Claim 1 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Defendant Dahlstrom. The Motion to Dismiss at Docket 24 is GRANTED. Amended Complaint or Notice of Voluntary Dismissal is due 10/17/2022. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 9/16/22. (JLH, COURT STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

JOSHUA JAMES BRADSHAW,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY DAHLSTROM, et al.,

Case No. 3:20-cv-00292-SLG-KFR

Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court at Docket 24 is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.1 Plaintiff
Joshua James Bradshaw filed a response in opposition at Docket 28. Defendants
filed a reply at Docket 36. Plaintiff filed supplemental briefing at Docket 44;
Defendants filed supplemental briefing at Docket 50.
The Court referred the Motion to Dismiss to the Honorable Magistrate Judge
Kyle F. Reardon.

At Docket 51, Judge Reardon issued his Findings and

Recommendation, in which he recommended that the motion be granted as
follows: (1) that Claim 1 be dismissed as moot against Defendant Winkelman; (2)
that Claim 2 be dismissed as moot against Defendant Dunleavy; (3) that Claim 3
be dismissed as moot against Defendant Dunleavy; and (4) that Plaintiff be given

Defendants in this case are Nancy Dahlstrom, former Commissioner of the State of Alaska,
Department of Corrections; Michael Dunleavy, Governor of the State of Alaska; and the State of
Alaska, Department of Corrections (DOC). Acting DOC Commissioner Winkelman was
automatically substituted as a party for the official capacity claim against the Commissioner
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d).
1

leave to amend Claim 1 against Defendant Dahlstrom. No objections to the Report
and Recommendation were filed.
The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That
statute provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”2 A court is
to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”3
But as to those topics on which no objections are filed, “[n]either the Constitution
nor [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings
and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”4
The magistrate judge recommended that the Court dismiss Claims 1, 2, and
3 as moot against Defendants Winkelman and Dunleavy. The Court has reviewed
the Report and Recommendation and agrees with its analysis. Accordingly, the
Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, and IT IS ORDERED that Claims
1, 2, and 3 are DISMISSED AS MOOT as to Defendants Winkelman and Dunleavy.

2

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

3

Id.

4

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court
review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard,
when neither party objects to those findings.”).

Case No. 3:20-cv-00292-SLG-KFR, Bradshaw v. Dahlstrom, et al.
Order Re Findings and Recommendation
Page 2 of 4

The magistrate judge also recommended that the Court dismiss without
prejudice and allow Plaintiff leave to amend Claim 1 as to Defendant Dahlstrom.
“In a § 1983 action, the plaintiff must also demonstrate that the defendant’s
conduct was the actionable cause of the claimed injury.”5

In order for Mr.

Bradshaw to maintain a claim for money damages against Defendant Dahlstrom
in her individual capacity, he must plausibly allege facts that if proven would
demonstrate that the named defendant (1) personally participated in depriving Mr.
Bradshaw of his rights and (2) that defendant’s actions caused Mr. Bradshaw’s
injury. The Court has reviewed the Findings and Recommendation and agrees
with its analysis that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to state how
Defendant Dahlstrom personally participated in the deprivation of his rights, and
therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, IT IS
ORDERED that Claim 1 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Defendant
Dahlstrom. The Court grants leave to amend Claim 1 as to Defendant Dahlstrom.
Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss at Docket 24is GRANTED as set forth above.
Mr. Bradshaw has until October 17, 2022, to file one of the following:
a.

Amended Complaint as to Claim 1 seeking money damages from
Defendant Dahlstrom, in which Mr. Bradshaw files an amended
complaint that restates this claim, correcting the deficiencies with that

5

Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008).

Case No. 3:20-cv-00292-SLG-KFR, Bradshaw v. Dahlstrom, et al.
Order Re Findings and Recommendation
Page 3 of 4

claim identified in this order. An amended complaint replaces the
current complaint in its entirety.
b.

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, which would inform the Court that
Mr. Bradshaw no longer wishes to pursue his lawsuit against
Defendant Dahlstrom and would dismiss the entire action.

Any amended complaint should be on this Court’s form, which is being
provided to Mr. Bradshaw with this Order. If Mr. Bradshaw does not file either an
Amended Complaint or Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on the Court form by
October 17, 2022, Claim 1 against Defendant Dahlstrom this case will be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This
dismissal will count as a “strike” against Mr. Bradshaw under § 1915(g).
The Clerk of Court is directed to send Mr. Bradshaw the following forms with
this Order: (1) form PS01, with “SECOND 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, “REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN ALASKA’S
FEDERAL COURT.”
DATED 16th day of September, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:20-cv-00292-SLG-KFR, Bradshaw v. Dahlstrom, et al.
Order Re Findings and Recommendation
Page 4 of 4