Harmon v. Stephens et al

Filing 9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL: The Complaint at Docket 1 is DISMISSED with prejudice. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 3/7/2025. (ANM, COURT STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

JAMES D. HARMON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:24-cv-00241-RRB

v.
TREVOR STEPHENS, Judge, and
DAVID SEID, Public Defender,
Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On November 4, 2024, self-represented prisoner James D. Harmon
(“Plaintiff”), a filed a civil complaint (“Complaint”), an application to waive
prepayment of the filing fee, and a financial affidavit.1 Plaintiff claims Judge Trevor
Stephens and Public Defender David Seid colluded against him to deny him
access to the courts during April and May 2005.2 Liberally construed, Plaintiff
alleges evidence was illegally introduced at his criminal trial, which should have
resulted in a mistrial.3 The evidence allegedly included a photograph with a sock
in the foreground, so Plaintiff claims Defendants “effectively chained [him] to a
sock.”4 For relief, Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 and

1 Dockets 1–3.
2 Docket 1 at 3–4.
3 Id. at 3.
4 Id. at 3–4.

punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00.5 On January 15, 2025, Plaintiff
filed a motion seeking to add additional defendants to this case.6 A plaintiff may
not simply substitute part of a complaint or add new facts, claims, or defendants
by motion. Therefore, the motion at Docket 4 is DENIED.
The Court now has screened the Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e) and 1915A. The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to adequately state a
claim for which relief may be granted. The Court further finds the Complaint to be
frivolous and that allowing leave to file an amended complaint would be futile.
Therefore, the Court will not grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and
dismisses this case with prejudice.
This dismissal does not count as a strike under the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).7
SCREENING STANDARD
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a federal district court is required to
screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.8
In this screening, a district court shall dismiss the case at any time if the
court determines that the action:

5 Id. at 8.
6 Dockets 4–5.
7 Hoffman v. Pulido, 928 F.3d. 1147, 1152 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Washington v. L.A. Cty.

Sheriff's Dep't, 833 F.3d 1048, 1057 (9th Cir. 2016)).
8 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A.

Case No. 3:24-cv-00241-RRB, Harmon v. Stephens and Seid
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 7

(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.9

In conducting its screening review, a district court must accept as true the
allegations of the complaint, construe the pleading in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor.10 However, a court is not
required to accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or
unwarranted deductions of fact.11 Although the scope of review generally is limited
to the contents of the complaint, a court also may consider documents attached to
the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters
of judicial notice.12 Before a court may dismiss any portion of a complaint, a court
must provide a 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

9 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
10 Bernhardt v. L.A. County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding a court must

construe pleadings filed by self-represented litigants liberally and afford the complainant
the benefit of any doubt).
11 Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted).
12 United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).

Case No. 3:24-cv-00241-RRB, Harmon v. Stephens and Seid
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 7

be futile.13 Futility exists when “the allegation of other facts consistent with the
challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.”14
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that a self-represented prisoner
receive a “strike” when a case he has filed in federal court is dismissed “as frivolous
or malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[.]” 15 The
“three strikes” provision was “designed to filter out the bad claims and facilitate
consideration of the good.”16 Once a prisoner-plaintiff has accumulated three
strikes, he is prohibited from bringing any other cases in federal court without
prepaying the full filing fee unless he makes “plausible allegations” that, at the time
he filed the complaint, “the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury.”17
DISCUSSION
I.

Civil Rights versus Habeas Corpus Actions
Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to

imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus and a civil rights complaint. 18 A

13 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)).
14 See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir.

1986).
15 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(g).
16 Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007).
17 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir.

2007).
18 See Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004).

Case No. 3:24-cv-00241-RRB, Harmon v. Stephens and Seid
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 7

prisoner who is seeking monetary damages because of an alleged violation of
constitutional rights must file a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(“Section 1983”). However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994), limits the ability of individuals to pursue Section 1983 claims
that are related to state court criminal proceedings. Under Heck, a plaintiff cannot
bring a Section 1983 claim for damages if a judgment in their favor would
necessarily imply the invalidity of their conviction or sentence, unless the
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct 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.19
Therefore, when a related state court criminal case results in a conviction, a
plaintiff's civil case arising out of the same incident may be barred by Heck.20
Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court takes
judicial notice21 of the Courtview records of the Alaska Trial Courts and of the
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 pending in federal

19 Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87.
20 Wallace 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007).
21 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 (12th ed. 2024); see also United States ex rel.
Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992)
(“We may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal
judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue”) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted.).
Case No. 3:24-cv-00241-RRB, Harmon v. Stephens and Seid
Order of Dismissal
Page 5 of 7

court22 challenging the same conviction and sentence as Plaintiff challenges in this
case.23

In his Petition, Plaintiff claims ineffective assistance of counsel, jury

tampering, and that on or about November 16, 2005, Judge Stephens imposed an
excessive sentence of 72 years upon him.24 According to the Petition, David Seid
represented him at the trial.25 Although the Courtview records of the Alaska Trial
Courts prior to 2010 are limited,26 the state court docket reflects that
Judge Stephens presided over the jury trial in State of Alaska v. Harmon,
Case No. 1JU-04-00671CR, which began on April 4, 2005. Because Plaintiff has
a pending Petition, he cannot show a favorable termination of the underlying
criminal case against him at this time.

Therefore, any claims for monetary

damages are barred by Heck.
II.

Plaintiff Names Improper Defendants
Even if Plaintiff’s claims were not barred by Heck, the Complaint must be

dismissed for naming improper defendants. A plaintiff cannot state a claim against

22 Harmon

v. State of Alaska, Case No. 1:23-cv-00009-SLG-KFR (Petition under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed
09/08/2023).
23 See State of Alaska v. Harmon, Case No. 1JU-04-00671CR.

Records of the Alaska
Trial Courts may be accessed online at https://courts.alaska.gov/main/search-cases.htm.
24 Harmon v. State of Alaska, Case No. 1:23-cv-00009-SLG-KFR, Docket 1 (“Petition”) at

1, 7.
25 Petition at 12.
26 Docket records of the Alaska Trial Courts and the Alaska Appellate Courts may be

accessed online at https://courts.alaska.gov/main/search-cases.htm (“All Records Prior
to 09/24/10 are Converted Records.”).
Case No. 3:24-cv-00241-RRB, Harmon v. Stephens and Seid
Order of Dismissal
Page 6 of 7

a judicial officer “because [a] judge is absolutely immune for judicial acts.” 27
Additionally, an attorney appointed to represent a criminal defendant in a state
court proceeding is “as a matter of law, . . . not a state actor,”28 an essential
element of a Section 1983 claim. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims against the state
court trial judge and public defender are barred or fail to state a cognizable claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.

The Complaint at Docket 1 is DISMISSED with prejudice.

2.

All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

3.

The Clerk shall issue a final judgment and close this case.

DATED this 7th day of March, 2025, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge

27 Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F. d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003).
28 See Miranda v. Clark County, Nevada, 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied,

540 U.S. 814 (2003).
Case No. 3:24-cv-00241-RRB, Harmon v. Stephens and Seid
Order of Dismissal
Page 7 of 7