Matthews v Department of Corrections, et al

Filing 7

SCREENING ORDER: Plaintiff's Complaint at Docket 1 in Case 4:24-cv-00019-SLG is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. Claims against the Department of Corrections are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff to file either a First Amended Complaint or a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal within 60 days. The application to waive payment of the filing fee at Docket 3 is GRANTED. This Order is docketed in conjunction with Case 4:24-cv-00020-SLG. Please see Order for further details. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 1/6/2025. (ANM, COURT STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

KENNY MATTHEWS, JR.,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG

v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
and SERGEANT SAPP,
Defendants.
KENNY MATTHEWS, JR.,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 4:24-cv-00020-SLG

v.
THE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.

SCREENING ORDER
On August 2, 2024, self-represented litigant Kenny Matthews, Jr. (“Plaintiff”)
filed two civil cases, as captioned above. Plaintiff filed a civil cover sheet and an
application to waive payment of the filing fee in each case.1 Pursuant to Rule 201

1 Dockets 1-3.

of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court takes judicial notice of the Courtview
records of the Alaska Trial Courts.2
In Claim 1 in Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG (“Case 19”), Plaintiff alleges that
on or about August 2, 2022, Sergeant Sapp violated his rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment by taking his cell phone out while Plaintiff’s genitals were
exposed during a medical procedure at Fairbanks Urology.3 Plaintiff claims an
unidentified correctional officer later told him that he had seen a video recording of
Plaintiff’s genitals, and so Plaintiff thought the video had been circulated amongst
the officers.4 Plaintiff claims the unidentified officer later denied seeing any such
video. Following an internal investigation, Sergeant Guzman allegedly told Plaintiff
that a correctional officer should not have a personal cell phone out during an
inmate’s medical appointment, but that it does not appear that a video recording
was taken of Plaintiff’s genitals.5 However, Plaintiff appears to allege, even if a
video was not recorded, his rights were still violated because he “felt uncomfortable

2 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.).
3 Case 19, Docket 1 at 3.
4 Case 19, Docket 1 at 3.
5 Case 19, Docket 1 at 3.

Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections, et al.
Case No. 4:24-cv-00020-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections
Screening Order
Page 2 of 18

like he was being recorded.”6 In Claim Two in Case 19, Plaintiff does not name a
specific individual or include a date the claim allegedly occurred, but he appears
to be bringing a claim stemming from the same incident against the Department of
Corrections (“DOC”).7
In Case No. 4:24-cv-00020-SLG (“Case 20”), Plaintiff states he “had to have
surgery to remove [his swollen lymph nodes] because they wouldn’t give [him his
test] results.”8 Liberally construed, Plaintiff appears to be bringing a claim for
inadequate medical care. However, the Complaint fails to name an individual
defendant or to include the year these events allegedly occurred. Plaintiff alleges
he went to jail on May 31st and requested STD testing. Then, he claims he started
experiencing medical issues in July, and later that same month went to a urology
doctor for a biopsy.9 This medical visit to the urologist appears to be the same
August 2022 urology visit referenced in Case 19.10 Additionally, according to the
state court docket, Plaintiff was charged on June 1, 2022, for events allegedly

6 Case 20, Docket 1 at 3 (emphasis added).
7 Case 20, Docket 1 at 3.
8 Case 20, Docket 1 at 3.
9 Case 20, Docket 1 at 3.
10 Compare Case 20, Docket 1 at 3 (“the urology doctor put something to numb my

penis so he could cut a piece of skin away”), with Case 19, Docket 1 at 4 (“… while the
doctor is injecting a numbing stuff on my penis so he could cut a sample out of me”).
Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections, et al.
Case No. 4:24-cv-00020-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections
Screening Order
Page 3 of 18

occurring on May 31, 2022, and convicted on June 9, 2023, after a jury trial. 11
Therefore, upon information and belief, the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims
involving his medical care in both Case 19 and Case 20 occurred between June
and November 2022. Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee when all the alleged events
giving rise to all his claims occurred.12 Plaintiff was released from custody prior to
filing this suit.13
The Court has now screened Plaintiff’s Complaints in accordance with 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. For the reasons discussed in this order, both cases
fail to adequately state a claim for which relief may be granted. Although
amendment is likely futile, Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint
in Case 19 only in accordance with the guidance below. However, the Court finds
that allowing leave to amend in Case 20 would be futile, as Plaintiff cannot maintain
claims against the DOC and fails to state a claim of deliberate medical indifference.
Therefore, Case 20 is dismissed without leave to amend. Plaintiff is accorded 60

11 State of Alaska vs. Matthews Jr., Kenny, Case No. 4FA-22-01173CR.
12 For civil rights claims by pretrial detainees pertaining to their conditions of

confinement, courts “properly rel[y] on the Due Process Clause rather than the Eighth
Amendment.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n.16 (1979).
13 Plaintiff listed an apartment as his address on both Complaints. Cases 19 & 20,

Docket 1. See also State of Alaska vs. Matthews Jr., Kenny, Case No. 4FA-2201173CR, Docket 06/09/2023 (“Charge Disposition: Defendant Convicted on Charge”);
Docket 06/13/2023 (“Bail Exonerated”); Docket 08/11/2023 (“Order and Conditions of
Release”).
Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections, et al.
Case No. 4:24-cv-00020-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections
Screening Order
Page 4 of 18

days to file an amended complaint in Case 19 that corrects the deficiencies
identified in this order.
SCREENING STANDARD
Federal law requires a district court to conduct an initial screening of a civil
complaint filed by a self-represented litigant seeking to proceed in a lawsuit in
federal court without paying the filing fee.14 In this screening, a district court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court 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.15

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.16 However, a court is not
required to accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or
unwarranted deductions of fact.17 Although the scope of review generally is limited

14 See, e.g., Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2000).
15 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
16Bernhardt 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).
17 Doe I v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted).
Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections, et al.
Case No. 4:24-cv-00020-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections
Screening Order
Page 5 of 18

to the contents of the complaint, a court may also consider documents attached to
the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters
of judicial notice.18 Such documents that contradict the allegations of a complaint
may fatally undermine the complaint's allegations.19
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 be futile. 20
Futility exists when “the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged
pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.”21
DISCUSSION
I.

Requirements to State a Claim

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure instructs that a complaint
must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

18 United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).
19 Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001), amended by

275 F.3d 1187 (2001) (noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by
including ... details contrary to his claims”).
20 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)).
21 See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th

Cir. 1986).
Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections, et al.
Case No. 4:24-cv-00020-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections
Screening Order
Page 6 of 18

[complainant] is entitled to relief[.]”22 While a complaint need not, and should not,
contain every factual detail, “unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation[s]” are insufficient to state a claim.23 To determine whether a complaint
states a valid claim for relief, a district court considers whether the complaint
contains enough facts that, if accepted as true, “state[s] a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.”24 A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged.”25
Further, a federal court cannot act as counsel for a self-represented litigant,
such as by supplying the essential elements of a claim,26 and it is not the Court’s
responsibility to review filings or exhibits to identify possible claims. A plaintiff must
allege that he suffered a specific injury as a result of the conduct of a particular

22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
23 Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555).
24 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 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 Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lee v. City of Los Angeles,
250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)).
25 Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678.
26 Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673

F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections, et al.
Case No. 4:24-cv-00020-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections
Screening Order
Page 7 of 18

defendant, and he must allege an affirmative link between the injury and the
conduct of that defendant.27
II.

Civil Rights Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”)

To state a claim for relief under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege plausible
facts that, if proven, would establish that (1) the defendant acting under color of
state law (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the federal Constitution or
federal statutes.28 To act under color of state law, a complaint must allege that the
defendant acted with state authority as a state actor.29 To be deprived of a right,
the defendant’s action needs to either violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution
or an enforceable right created by a federal statute.30 Section 1983 does not
confer constitutional or federal statutory rights. Instead, it provides a mechanism
for remedying violations of pre-existing federal rights.31

27 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).
28 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986).
29 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S.

299, 326 (1941)).
30 Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F. 3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995); Blessing v. Freestone,

520 U.S. 329, 340-41 (1997).
31 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393–94 (1989).

Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections, et al.
Case No. 4:24-cv-00020-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections
Screening Order
Page 8 of 18

III.

Plaintiff cannot bring claims against the Department of
Corrections (“DOC”)

A defendant in a civil rights lawsuit must be a “person.” 32 States and state
agencies are not considered “persons” under Section 1983.33 Further, the Eleventh
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives states sovereign immunity, which
prohibits lawsuits against a state or the “arms of the state” (the State’s
governmental branches, divisions, offices, and departments), unless the State or
state agency’s immunity has been waived.34 The State of Alaska has not waived
its immunity from civil rights claims alleging violations of the federal Constitution.
Therefore, any civil rights claims against the State of Alaska or its agencies, such
as the Department of Corrections, cannot proceed in federal court.
IV.

Any claims for injunctive relief are mooted by Plaintiff’s release
from DOC custody

Plaintiff’s claims relate to events that allegedly occurred while he was in the
custody of the DOC, but his Complaints were filed after he has since been released
from DOC custody. A prisoner's release from custody “extinguishes his legal

32 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
33 Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70 (1989).
34 Alabama v. Pugh, 348 U.S. 781 (1978); In re New York, 256 U.S. 490, 497 (1921);

see also Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15 (1890).
Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections, et al.
Case No. 4:24-cv-00020-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections
Screening Order
Page 9 of 18

interest in an injunction because it would have no effect on him.” 35 Plaintiff’s
Complaints seek monetary damages and do not specifically request injunctive
relief in either complaint.36 But to the extent Plaintiff is trying to ensure DOC has
updated its policies re photographs and videos, seeking to prevent DOC from
taking any future photographs or videos of him, or seeking any other injunctive
relief, he must not bring such requests for relief in any amended complaint.
V.

Inadequate medical care

In Case 20, Plaintiff appears to allege he received inadequate medical care
from DOC staff. As noted above, Plaintiff cannot name the DOC itself as a
defendant with respect to such claims. A plaintiff may, however, be able to allege
a claim for inadequate medical care against individual prison officials.
The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects pretrial
detainees from prison officials’ deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.37

35 McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1095 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Bernhardt

v. Cnty. of L.A., 279 F.3d 862, 871 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also Preiser, 422 U.S. at 402–
03 (where prisoner challenges conditions of confinement and seeks injunctive relief,
transfer to another prison renders request for injunctive relief moot absent evidence of
an expectation that prisoner will be transferred back to offending institution); Johnson v.
Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (prisoner's injunctive relief claim
against state prison official is moot following transfer to federal prison).
36 See Case 19, Docket 1 at 6-7 (seeking damages in the amount of $500,000 and

punitive damages in the amount of $4,000,000); see also Case 20, Docket 1 at 7
(seeking damages in the amount of $500,000 and punitive damages in the amount of
$3,500,000).
37 Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002).

Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections, et al.
Case No. 4:24-cv-00020-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections
Screening Order
Page 10 of 18

To prevail on such claim, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts, that if accepted as
true, support each of the following elements:
(1) the defendant made an intentional decision regarding the denial of
needed medical care;
(2) the denial of needed medical care put the plaintiff at substantial
risk of suffering serious harm;
(3) the defendant did not take objectively reasonable available
measures to abate or reduce the risk of serious harm;
(4) by not taking such measures the defendant caused the plaintiff’s
injuries.38
With respect to the third element, the defendant’s conduct must be
objectively unreasonable and must demonstrate deliberate indifference. “[T]o
show deliberate indifference, the plaintiff must show that the course of treatment
the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and that
the defendants chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to
the plaintiff’s health.”39 A defendant’s conduct “must be evaluated under an
objective deliberate indifference standard.”40 Meaning, under the circumstances, a
See Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Civil Jury Instructions, Instruction 9.30 and the cases cited
therein.
38

39 Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted).
40 Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124–25 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Castro v.

Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections, et al.
Case No. 4:24-cv-00020-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections
Screening Order
Page 11 of 18

reasonable defendant would have understood the high degree of risk of harm
involved—making the consequences of the defendant’s conduct obvious.
In Case 20, Plaintiff claims he requested testing for sexually transmitted
diseases shortly after he was arrested in June 2022, and that while he received
the testing as requested, he was denied his test results.41 Plaintiff’s narrative
describes multiple tests and claims he was treated with medication, “peanut butter
shots in both hips[,]” and eventually surgery.42 To the extent Plaintiff is alleging he
was not provided with appropriate medical care, he has not named any individual
responsible for his medical care; nor has he pled sufficient facts to establish that
an individual was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Based on
the facts pleaded, Plaintiff received medical attention from a specialist within two
months of his incarceration and has not alleged any significant injury that was
deliberately not treated by prison officials. In addition, to the extent Plaintiff is
claiming that he was injured by health care provided to him prior to August 2, 2022,
such claims would be barred by the applicable two year statute of limitations, since
Plaintiff did not file Case 20 until August 2, 2022. In sum, there appear to be no
additional facts that Plaintiff could plead that are consistent with those alleged in

County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2016)).
41 Case 20, Docket 1.
42 Case 20, Docket 1 at 3.

Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections, et al.
Case No. 4:24-cv-00020-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections
Screening Order
Page 12 of 18

Case 20 that could state a viable claim for deliberate indifference in the provision
of medical care to him by DOC officers in 2022. Therefore, Case 20 must be
dismissed without leave to amend.
VI.

Invasion of bodily privacy

Case 19 relates to the alleged use of a cell phone by a correctional officr
during Plaintiff’s urology visit in August 2022.
“Loss of freedom of choice and privacy are inherent incidents of
confinement.”43 However, “incarcerated prisoners retain a limited right to bodily
privacy. Shielding one's unclothed figure from the view of strangers, particularly
strangers of the opposite sex[,] is impelled by elementary self-respect and personal
dignity.”44 A prisoner's bodily privacy, however, exists only so far as it is not
fundamentally inconsistent with prisoner status or incompatible with the legitimate
objectives of incarceration.45 Plaintiff has not pleaded facts to support a claim for
invasion of bodily privacy. At most, Plaintiff appears to allege an affront to his
dignity, which, at least on the facts alleged here, does not state a constitutional
claim. It appears unlikely that Plaintiff will be able to state a viable claim for a

43 Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 (1979).
44 Michenfelder, 860 F.2d at 333 (citing Grummet, 779 F.2d at 494; Cumbey v.

Meachum, 684 F.2d 712, 714 (10th Cir.1982) (“Although the inmates' right to privacy
must yield to the penal institution's need to maintain security, it does not vanish
altogether.”)).
45 Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974); Michenfelder, 860 F.2d at 332.

Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections, et al.
Case No. 4:24-cv-00020-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections
Screening Order
Page 13 of 18

violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free against unreasonable searches
and seizures in connection with his urology visit in August 2022. Nonetheless, the
Court will accord Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint to attempt
to state such a claim.
VII.

Filing an Amended Complaint

An amended complaint replaces the prior complaint in its entirety. 46 Any
claim not included in the amended complaint will be considered waived. However,
an amended complaint need only contain a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”47 An amended complaint need not
and should not contain legal research or analysis. Additionally, a plaintiff need not
file exhibits or evidence to attempt to prove his case at the pleading stage.48
Rather, a complaint need only to allege sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a [plausible] claim for relief.49 A claim is “plausible” when the facts alleged
support a reasonable inference that the plaintiff is entitled to relief from a specific
defendant for specific misconduct. Although Plaintiff is being given the opportunity

46 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; Local Civil Rule 15.1.
47 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
48 Although the Court may also consider documents attached to the complaint,

documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice, the
scope of review at the screening generally is limited to the contents of the complaint.
United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).
49 Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2).

Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections, et al.
Case No. 4:24-cv-00020-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections
Screening Order
Page 14 of 18

to file an amended complaint in Case 19 only, he shall not unjustifiably expand the
scope of that case by alleging new unrelated claims. An amended complaint must
not include any claims or defendants for which Plaintiff lacks a sufficient legal or
factual basis.
The amended complaint must contain separately numbered, clearly
identified claims. If handwritten, it must be legible. Each claim should identify the
specific injury that the plaintiff is alleging has occurred, when that injury occurred,
where that injury was caused, and who the plaintiff is alleging caused that specific
injury. In addition, the allegations of the amended complaint must be set forth in
sequentially numbered short paragraphs, and no paragraph number being
repeated anywhere in the complaint.50 Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure requires that “[a] party must state its claims or defenses as numbered
paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.

Case 20 is DISMISSED without leave to amend.

2.

Plaintiff’s Complaint at Docket 1 in Case 19 is DISMISSED for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

50 A complaint must consist of continuously numbered paragraphs from beginning to

end; do not start each new section with number 1. This allows ease of reference to the
various allegations in the complaint and permits the defendants to admit or deny each
specific allegation by paragraph.
Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections, et al.
Case No. 4:24-cv-00020-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections
Screening Order
Page 15 of 18

3.

Plaintiff’s claims against the Department of Corrections in both Case

19 and Case 20 are DISMISSED with prejudice.
4. In Case 19 only, Plaintiff is accorded 60 days from the date of this order
to file either:
a. First Amended Complaint, in which Plaintiff revises his claims for
monetary damages against Sergeant Sapp to address the
deficiencies identified in this order. Plaintiff must not include any
claims for injunctive relief or any claims against the Department of
Corrections. An amended complaint should be on the Court’s form,
which is being provided to Plaintiff with this order; OR
b. Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, in which Plaintiff elects to close and
end Case 19.
5.

If Plaintiff does not file either an Amended Complaint or Notice of

Voluntary Dismissal on the Court’s form, Case 19 may be dismissed without further
notice to Plaintiff.
6.

Plaintiff’s application to waive payment of the filing fee at Docket 3 in

Case 19 is GRANTED.
7.

Self-represented litigants are expected to review and comply with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the District of Alaska’s Local Civil Rules, and all

Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections, et al.
Case No. 4:24-cv-00020-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections
Screening Order
Page 16 of 18

Court orders.51 Failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions authorized
by law, including dismissal of the action.
8.

Self-represented litigants must be ready to diligently pursue each

case to completion. Missing a deadline or otherwise failing to pursue a case may
result in the dismissal of the action.
9.

At all times, all parties shall keep the Court informed of any change of

address or phone number. Such notice shall be titled “Notice of Change of
Address.” The Notice shall contain only information about the change of address,
and its effective date.52 The Notice shall not include requests for any other relief.
A Notice of Change of Address form, PS23, may be obtained from the Clerk of
Court, if needed. If a plaintiff fails to keep a current address on file with the Court,
that may result in a dismissal of the case without further notice to the plaintiff.
10.

All pending motions in Case 20 are DENIED as moot.

11.

The Clerk of Court shall issue a final judgment and close Case 20.

12.

With this order, the Clerk is directed to send: (1) form PS01, with

“FIRST AMENDED” written above the title “Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/currentrules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure; Court’s Local Rules:
https://www.akd.uscourts. gov/court-info/local-rules-and-orders/local-rules.
51

See Local Civil Rule 11.1(b) (requiring a notice of change of address to be filed, as
“[s]elf-represented parties must keep the court and other parties advised of the party’s
current address and telephone number”).
52

Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections, et al.
Case No. 4:24-cv-00020-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections
Screening Order
Page 17 of 18

42 U.S.C. § 1983” and “Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG” written on the first page of
the complaint form; (2) form PS09, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; and (3) form
PS23, Notice of Change of Address.
DATED this 6th day of January 2025.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
SHARON L. GLEASON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 4:24-cv-00019-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections, et al.
Case No. 4:24-cv-00020-SLG, Matthews v. Department of Corrections
Screening Order
Page 18 of 18