Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_23-cv-00202/USCOURTS-akd-3_23-cv-00202-3/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

NIAL SHERWOOD WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT,

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:23-cv-00202-SLG

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case was originally filed by self-represented litigant Nial Sherwood 

Williams (“Plaintiff”) on September 1, 2023. On May 31, 2024, a screening order 

was issued, which identified numerous deficiencies with the complaint but 

accorded Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint. The case was 

reassigned to the undersigned judge on July 10, 2024. On August 2, 2024, Plaintiff

filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

1 Earlier that same day, the Court had 

issued an Order of Dismissal for failure to file an amended complaint by the July 

30th deadline and closed this case.2 But since the Court received the FAC only a 

few days after the deadline, this case was reopened on August 7, 2024. However, 

the Court has now screened the FAC in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) 

1 Docket 10. 

2 Dockets 8-9.

Case 3:23-cv-00202-SLG Document 12 Filed 12/26/24 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 3:23-cv-00202-SLG, Williams v. Anchorage School District, et al.

Order of Dismissal

Page 2 of 3

and 1915A and finds that it contains the same deficiencies previously identified in 

the Court’s screening order at Docket 6. Accordingly, this action must be 

dismissed.

In fact, upon review, Plaintiff has not made any substantive changes to the 

FAC, other than to remove many of the defendants previously named. Although 

the FAC only names three of the 31 defendants originally named,3the narratives 

describing all seven of Plaintiff’s claims and the contents of all four of his requests

for relief are word-for-word identical to those in the original complaint.4 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.”5 Therefore, the Court will not accord Plaintiff a second opportunity to 

amend his claims.6

3 See Docket 1 at 2-3.

4 Compare Docket 1 at 10–20, with Docket 10 at 4–14.

5 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]”).

6 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 self-represented plaintiff regarding 

deficiencies in prior order dismissing claim with leave to amend).

Case 3:23-cv-00202-SLG Document 12 Filed 12/26/24 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 3:23-cv-00202-SLG, Williams v. Anchorage School District, et al.

Order of Dismissal

Page 3 of 3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 

1. This case 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 26th day of December 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason 

SHARON L. GLEASON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:23-cv-00202-SLG Document 12 Filed 12/26/24 Page 3 of 3