Davison v. Sidders et al

Filing 9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL: This case is dismissed. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 1/6/2025. (ANM, COURT STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

MICHAEL WADE DAVISON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:24-cv-00066-SLG

v.
MATTEW SIDDERS, CHRISTINE B.
JOSLIN, and JASON R. VENABLE,
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This case was originally filed by self-represented litigant prisoner Michael
Wade Davison (“Plaintiff”) on March 19, 2024.1 On August 13, 2024, a screening
order was issued, which identified numerous deficiencies with the complaint but
accorded Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. On August 22,
2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).2 The Court has now
screened the FAC in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A and finds
that it contains the same deficiencies previously identified in the Court’s screening
order at Docket 7. Plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient facts to state a plausible claim
upon which relief could be granted. Accordingly, this action must be dismissed.

1 Docket 1.
2 Docket 8.

A plaintiff’s failure to correct the deficiencies identified in a screening order
is “a strong indication that [he has] no additional facts to plead” and “any
amendment would be futile.”3 Therefore, the Court will not accord Plaintiff a second
opportunity to amend his claims.4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. This case is DISMISSED.
2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3. The Clerk shall issue a final judgment and close this case.
DATED this 6th day of January, 2025, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
SHARON L. GLEASON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3 Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (2009) (citation omitted). See also Salameh

v. Tarsadia Hotel, 726 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that district court properly denied leave to
amend when “the district court gave Plaintiffs specific instructions on how to amend the complaint, and
Plaintiffs did not comply”); Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th Cir.
2008) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff's third amendment complaint with prejudice when plaintiff failed to
cure deficiencies that had “persisted in every prior iteration of the [complaint]”).
4 See Mirmehdi v. United States, 689 F.3d 975, 985 (9th Cir. 2012). (“[A] party is not entitled to an

opportunity to amend his complaint if any potential amendment would be futile.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963
F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal with prejudice where district court had instructed selfrepresented plaintiff regarding deficiencies in prior order dismissing claim with leave to amend).

Case No. 3:24-cv-00066-SLG, Davison v. Sidders, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 2