Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_14-cv-00219/USCOURTS-akd-3_14-cv-00219-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

THOR JAMES WILLIAMSON,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

EARL HOUSER, et al., 

 Defendants. Case No. 3:14-cv-00219-SLG

ORDER PERMITTING THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

SOLELY ON COURT FORM

Thor James Williamson, a self-represented state prisoner, has filed a

Second Amended Complaint (SAC) as permitted by the Court’s Order at Docket 

24.

1 In his SAC, Mr. Williamson asserts violations of his Due Process rights 

against each of the Defendants, state officials at Palmer Correctional Center

(PCC), in their individual capacities for money damages.2 

In its earlier Order Permitting Amended Complaint, at Docket 21, the Court 

explained the requirements for stating a claim for relief for violations that may have 

occurred as a result of the acts of various state officials in Mr. Williamson’s case.

3

The possible claims explained by the Court, after reviewing the facts alleged by 

1 Dockets 25, 26-1 (missing page to the SAC, which will be construed as an errata to the 

SAC).

2 Docket 25 at 2-3.

3 Docket 21.

 

Case 3:14-cv-00219-SLG Document 27 Filed 03/16/15 Page 1 of 10
Mr. Williamson, included the denial of the right of access to the courts,4 the 

violation of the right to Due Process,

5 and retaliation for the exercise of his First 

Amendment rights.6 The Court also explained that to obtain money damages from 

an individual defendant, Mr. Williamson must assert facts showing that that

individual defendant participated in causing his alleged injuries.

7

Again, because Mr. Williamson is a prisoner, the Court is required to “identify 

cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the 

complaint—

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted; or

(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.”8 

4 Id. at 4-6.

5 Id. at 6-7.

6 Id. at 8.

7 Id. at 8-10.

8 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (required review of in forma 

pauperis complaints); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1) (“The court shall on its own motion . . . 

dismiss any action brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this 

title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner . . . if the court is satisfied that the action is 

frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.”); see also Hebbe v. 

Plier, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[O]ur ‘obligation’ remains [after Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662 (2009)], ‘where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to 

construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.’”) 

(citation omitted).

3:14-cv-00219, Williamson v. Houser

Order Permitting Third Amended Complaint

Page 2 of 10

 

Case 3:14-cv-00219-SLG Document 27 Filed 03/16/15 Page 2 of 10
1. Mr. Williamson has failed to state a claim for relief for the violation of his right 

to Due Process.

The Supreme Court has explained that “the Due Process Clause provides 

that certain substantive rights—life, liberty, and property—cannot be deprived 

except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures. . . [O]nce it is determined 

that the Due Process Clause applies, ‘the question remains what process is due.’”9 

Further, Mr. Williamson must show that any denial of his right to Due Process 

resulted in an injury in fact.10 

In his first claim for relief, against Earl Houser, the Assistant Superintendent

of PCC, Mr. Williamson alleges as follows:

After being placed in segregation denied and deprived access to my 

current civil legal documents from the courts for 49 days. by knowing 

his officers seized court documentation until disciplinary action could 

be imposed before D-Board and all segregation time completed. After 

stating “employees of the Department do not deny any ones their 

rights to Due Process”. After All Earl Houser was one of the officers 

9 Cleveland Bd. Of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 541 (1985) (citations omitted); see 

also Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987) (“[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on 

inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate 

penological interests.”).

10 See Witt v. Department of Air Force, 527 F.3d 806, 812 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Major Witt 

meets the Article III requirements for her substantive due process and equal protection 

claims. . . . Major Witt suffered a cognizable injury on account of her long-term 

suspension.”); Schmier v. U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, 279 F.3d 817, 821-22 

(9th Cir. 2001) (Attorney failed to state a Due Process claim when he “alleged no facts 

showing, with specificity, that the prohibition against citing unpublished dispositions will 

produce an imminent injury personal to Schmier himself . . . or even to one of Schmier’s 

clients,” nor did “he establish standing based solely on his interest in seeing the federal 

courts (among other governmental bodies) ‘perform [their] duties’ and abide by the 

Constitution.”) (citations omitted); Lee v. State of Oregon, 107 F.3d 1382, 1390 (9th Cir. 

1997) (“None of the Plaintiffs can assert an ‘injury in fact’ resulting from the alleged equal 

protection, due process, Americans with Disabilities Act, or Rehabilitation Act violations. 

. . . The failure to assert an ‘injury in fact’ requires the dismissal of these claims.”).

3:14-cv-00219, Williamson v. Houser

Order Permitting Third Amended Complaint

Page 3 of 10

 

Case 3:14-cv-00219-SLG Document 27 Filed 03/16/15 Page 3 of 10
that had placed me in segregation to begin with. My right to “Due 

Process” were violated by the above named defendant for (49) days 

while housed in segregation. This conduct is unacceptable and 

constitutes deliberate indifference. Plaintiff had permission by staff 

rnember Paul Kroening to store a box of legal work in his office. And 

my name and the box had the words (LEGAL COURT DOCUMENTS) 

written all over it. So, there was no chance of this box of legal 

documents could be considered abandoned property, or what it was. 

Or who it belonged to. Or where I was at.11

Mr. Williamson states that he was denied access to his legal documents 

while he was in segregation for 49 days.

12 He has not specifically stated, however, 

how his Due Process rights were violated during that process, resulting in an injury. 

Thus, Mr. Williamson has not stated a claim for relief against Earl Houser for the 

violation of his right to Due Process.13 

In his second claim for relief, Mr. Williamson alleges that Robert Hall, a 

sergeant at PCC, violated his rights as follows:

On 9/19/2014, Plaintiff submitted request for access to his legal 

documentation regarding Civil Complaint and litigation. Defendant 

Hall denied me access to my documentation and stated that I’m only 

allowed to have information pertaining to my criminal case. Defendant 

Robert Hall continued to deny me access to my Civil case by stating

that I will be able to work on it once I was released from segregation. 

Defendant Hall consistently denies my requests again on Sept 29th 

2014. My rights to “Due Process” were violated by Robert Hall for an 

11 Docket 25 at 4.

12 Id.

13 Mr. Williamson uses the term “deliberate indifference” throughout his pleading. See id. 

at 4-6; Docket 26-1. However, deliberate indifference normally describes cruel and 

unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, particularly in cases addressing the 

failure to meet a prisoner’s serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 

(1976).

3:14-cv-00219, Williamson v. Houser

Order Permitting Third Amended Complaint

Page 4 of 10

 

Case 3:14-cv-00219-SLG Document 27 Filed 03/16/15 Page 4 of 10
extended period of time. This conduct is unacceptable and 

constitutes, “deliberate indifference” to my civil rights.14

Again, alleging that Mr. Williamson was denied access to his legal 

documents while he was in segregation for 49 days, without more, does not state

a claim for relief for the violation of Mr. Williamson’s right to Due Process. 

In his third claim, against PCC Sergeant Frances Buzby, Mr. Williamson also 

alleges that his rights were violated as follows:

On 9/2/2014, at approximately 7:00, Frances Buzby was notified 

about Williamson’s box of legal documents being stored in the 

education department office. Williamson had permission by Staff 

member Paul Kroening to leave my box of legal work in the office while 

I was scheduled to leave the facility for day surgery. Defendant Buzby 

violated Privileged Mail. Defendant Buzby used my Privileged mail 

and legal documents to issue an incident report stating that some of 

the paper work was a (Direct threat) to the security to the Institution. 

Officer Buzby violated confidentiality by breaching the documents 

contained in my legal material. Further, Defendant Buzby deprived 

and denied me access to my legal work by seizing the documentation 

until disciplinary action could be imposed before D-Board. My Right 

to “Due Process” were violated by the above mentioned defendant for 

(49) days while housed in segregation, pending and completing

disciplinary actions.15

And in his fourth claim, Mr. Williamson alleges the following against 

Douglass Shaeffer, a PCC Property Officer:

On 9/19/2014, Plaintiff submitted requests for access to his legal 

documents regarding Civil Complaint and other litigation. Defendant 

Shaeffer, denied me access to my documentation. for the 49 days I 

was in the hole telling me I must get my legal documents from 

Defendant Hall. This denies my rights to Due Process. And my rights 

14 Docket 25 at 5.

15 Id. at 6.

3:14-cv-00219, Williamson v. Houser

Order Permitting Third Amended Complaint

Page 5 of 10

 

Case 3:14-cv-00219-SLG Document 27 Filed 03/16/15 Page 5 of 10
were violated by Douqlass Sheaffer for an extended period of time. 

This conduct is unacceptable and constitutes, “deliberate

indifference.” to my civil rights.

16 

Mr. Williamson has not specifically alleged how his Due Process rights were

violated, resulting in an injury, by Frances Buzby, Douglass Shaeffer, or any other 

Defendant.

17

2. Mr. Williamson will be given a final opportunity to proceed with this case.

18

Mr. Williamson may either (1) proceed on his First Amended Complaint at 

Docket 22, without the attachments, and with an errata providing the full names of 

the three remaining Defendants in the caption (as explained in the Order Permitting 

16 Docket 26-1.

17 Compare Antonetti v. Skolnik, 748 F.Supp.2d 1201, 1210-11 (D. Nev. 2010) (“Plaintiff 

claims that he has been housed in segregation for several years, and has been repeatedly 

denied materials such as books, paper, pens, and envelopes, as well as assistance from 

a law clerk and help with research . . . by direct refusal and by policy. . . . [P]laintiff argues 

that defendants’ failures have prevented him from being properly prepared for court. He 

claims that as a result, his habeas corpus petitions and civil rights actions have been 

dismissed . . . The court finds that under the facts alleged by plaintiff . . . he states a 

colorable First Amendment access to courts claim.”) (emphasis added); and Giba v. 

Cook, 232 F.Supp.2d 1171, 1185 (D. Oregon 2002) (“Giba claims that several defendants 

denied him the right of access to the courts and that he incurred an actual injury because 

the ‘confiscated documents eventually culminated in plaintiff having his lawsuit 

dismissed.’ . . . Giba alleges that he was denied the right of access to the courts because 

several defendants confiscated and destroyed his photocopies of another inmate’s legal 

papers. Giba, however, fails to show how this interference actually caused the dismissal 

of his civil case, let alone to which civil case he is referring. Moreover, Giba should have 

been able to procure any documents relating to his own case through the discovery 

process and by requesting affidavits from other inmates to be sent directly to him. Thus, 

the confiscation and destruction of these papers cannot amount to the denial of court 

access.”).

18 See Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1105 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Dismissal of a pro se 

complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies 

of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”).

3:14-cv-00219, Williamson v. Houser

Order Permitting Third Amended Complaint

Page 6 of 10

 

Case 3:14-cv-00219-SLG Document 27 Filed 03/16/15 Page 6 of 10
Second Amended Complaint Solely on Court Form, at Docket 24); or (2) file a Third

Amended Complaint solely on the form provided by the Court, with no attachments.

If Mr. Williamson chooses to file a Third Amended Complaint, he should 

allege facts against only one defendant for each claim for relief in the space 

provided. In Claim 1, for example, Mr. Williamson could state facts solely in 

support of his allegation that Assistant Superintendent Houser violated his Due 

Process rights, and how he was injured as a result; in Claim 2, he could state facts 

solely against Sergeant Robert Hall for the violation of his right to access to the 

courts, and how he was injured as a result; and so on. 

If he chooses to amend, Mr. Williamson must state, specifically, what each 

state official did or did not do which he believes violated his federal civil rights, and 

what specific relief he seeks from the Court – whether in the form of damages or 

injunctive relief. Mr. Williamson must decide, for each defendant, whether he or 

she is being sued in his or her individual capacity (requesting money damages for 

participating in causing his injuries), or official capacity (requesting injunctive relief 

to address a policy or custom that resulted in his injuries).

The Court is sending a form upon which Mr. Williamson must file any 

amended complaint. In completing this form, Mr. Williamson should state the facts 

in his own words, as if he were briefly and concisely telling someone what 

happened. The facts provided in support of each separate claim must specifically

include the name of the particular defendant, what happened, how the particular 

3:14-cv-00219, Williamson v. Houser

Order Permitting Third Amended Complaint

Page 7 of 10

Case 3:14-cv-00219-SLG Document 27 Filed 03/16/15 Page 7 of 10
defendant was involved, when the events occurred, where those events occurred, 

how he was hurt, and what the injuries were. In other words, Mr. Williamson must 

avoid stating conclusions.

19

Later, if his claims proceed before the Court on the merits, at the discretion 

of the Court, Mr. Williamson may be given an opportunity to file a brief on the issues 

in which he may more thoroughly argue the case with supporting documentation.

20

A Third Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to 

any prior pleading.21 That is, any defendant not named or claim not re-alleged is 

generally considered waived.22 Thus, in a Third Amended Complaint, 

Mr. Williamson should make no reference to his previous complaints or other 

extraneous documents.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. The Second Amended Complaint, with errata, at Dockets 25 and 26-1, is 

DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a Third Amended Complaint.

19 See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.

20 After the answer(s) have been filed in a case, the Court issues a Scheduling Order that 

sets out the briefing and pretrial schedule. A brief is a “written statement setting out the 

legal contentions of a party in litigation . . . consisting of legal and factual arguments and 

the authorities in support of them.” Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009).

21 See D.Ak.LR 15.1(3).

22 See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (“For claims 

dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not require that they be 

repled in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal. But for any 

claims voluntarily dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not repled.”) 

(citation omitted).

3:14-cv-00219, Williamson v. Houser

Order Permitting Third Amended Complaint

Page 8 of 10

 

Case 3:14-cv-00219-SLG Document 27 Filed 03/16/15 Page 8 of 10
2. The Motion at Docket 20 is STRICKEN as improper under the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure.

23

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send form PS01, Prisoner’s Complaint 

under the Civil Rights Act, and a copy of the Court’s Orders at Dockets 21

and 24 to Mr. Williamson with this Order.

4. Mr. Williamson may proceed on his First Amended Complaint at Docket 22

(as explained in Docket 24), against the three remaining Defendants, or he 

may file a Third Amended Complaint on or before April 16, 2015. If he files 

a Third Amended Complaint, he must do so solely on the form provided by 

the Court, with no attachments. He must state facts against only a single 

defendant in each claim for relief. He must make no legal arguments.

5. If Mr. Williamson decides to proceed solely on his First Amended Complaint 

at Docket 22, without attachments, he shall file a notice with the Court on or 

before April 16, 2015. He shall also submit an errata to his First Amended 

Complaint on the first page of the Prisoner’s Civil Rights Complaint form 

23 The factual allegations and request for relief addressed in Docket 20 are what should 

be contained within a complaint.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court 

already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; 

and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different 

types of relief.”) (emphasis in original).

3:14-cv-00219, Williamson v. Houser

Order Permitting Third Amended Complaint

Page 9 of 10

 

Case 3:14-cv-00219-SLG Document 27 Filed 03/16/15 Page 9 of 10
provided to him with this Order. On that paper, Mr. Williamson must list all 

of the three remaining Defendants by their full names in the caption, and 

complete the remainder of the page.

24 He shall title that page, “Errata to 

Amended Complaint at Docket 22,” and return the page to the Clerk of Court 

on or before April 16, 2015.

DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 16th day of March, 2015.

/s/ SHARON L. GLEASON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 Mr. Williamson properly completed the first page of his Second Amended Complaint at 

Docket 25, for example. After service of a complaint, future documents may use the name 

of the first Defendant, and “et al.” in the caption, as demonstrated on the first page of this 

Order.

3:14-cv-00219, Williamson v. Houser

Order Permitting Third Amended Complaint

Page 10 of 10

 

Case 3:14-cv-00219-SLG Document 27 Filed 03/16/15 Page 10 of 10