Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_20-cv-00229/USCOURTS-akd-3_20-cv-00229-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

KRISTOFFER L. GARNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT BROWN,

 Defendant.

Case No. 3:20-cv-00229-JMK

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On September 11, 2020, self-represented prisoner Kristoffer L. Garner filed 

a Complaint along with a Request for Exemption from Payment of Fees and a

Request and Order [to] Waive Fees and Costs.

1 

In his Complaint, Mr. Garner alleges that Defendant Brown is indebted to 

him in the amount of $5,500.00.2 Mr. Garner makes his allegation on a form 

provided by the District Court of the State of Alaska for initiating small claims 

actions.3 Similarly, Mr. Garner’s motions are on forms provided by the District 

Court of the State of Alaska.4

1 Dockets 1–3.

2 Docket 1.

3 Docket 1.

4 See Dockets 2–3.

Case 3:20-cv-00229-JMK Document 5 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 7
3:20-cv-00229-JMK, Garner v. Brown

Order of Dismissal

Page 2 of 7

For relief, Mr. Garner requests small claims procedure and $5,500.00.

5 

SCREENING STANDARD

Federal law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a civil 

complaint filed by a self-represented prisoner seeking a waiver of the prepayment 

of the filing fee. In this screening, a 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.6

To determine whether a complaint states a valid claim for relief, courts

consider whether the complaint contains sufficient factual matter that, if accepted 

as true, “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”7 In conducting its 

review, a court must liberally construe a self-represented plaintiff’s pleading and 

give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.8 Before a court may dismiss any portion 

5 Docket 1 at 1.

6 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b).

7 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing 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 Colleges, 

655 F.3d 984, 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lee v. L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)).

8 See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 

1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)).

Case 3:20-cv-00229-JMK Document 5 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 7
3:20-cv-00229-JMK, Garner v. Brown

Order of Dismissal

Page 3 of 7

of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the 

court must provide the 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.9 

Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has established that “the 

federal courts are under an independent obligation to examine their own 

jurisdiction[.]”10 In a federal court proceeding, a jurisdictional defect may be raised 

at any time.11

DISCUSSION

Mr. Garner requests relief through the small claims process overseen by the 

District Court for the State of Alaska. He has filed his action in the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Alaska. The U.S. District Court is a federal court, which 

addresses questions of federal law or controversies between parties with diverse 

citizenship. Small claims procedure is a state court process presided over by the 

District Court for the State of Alaska. It is clear on its face that Mr. Garner has filed 

an action in the incorrect district court. Without a federal question or diverse 

9 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)).

10 United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742 (1995).

11 Washington Environmental Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2013).

Case 3:20-cv-00229-JMK Document 5 Filed 11/10/20 Page 3 of 7
3:20-cv-00229-JMK, Garner v. Brown

Order of Dismissal

Page 4 of 7

parties, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear this case. Mr. Garner’s action must 

be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

I. Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is “[a] court's power to decide a case or issue a decree.”12 A 

court’s subject matter jurisdiction is its “statutory or constitutional power to 

adjudicate a case.”13 As a federal court, this Court has limited subject matter 

jurisdiction. It possesses “only that power authorized by the Constitution and 

statute.”14 This means that the Court has the authority to hear only specified types 

of cases.15 “In civil cases, subject matter jurisdiction is generally conferred upon 

federal district courts either through diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or 

federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”16

Federal question jurisdiction gives a federal court the authority to consider 

cases brought under the United States Constitution or federal statutes.17 

12 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (9th ed. 2009) (definition of “jurisdiction”).

13 Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998).

14 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted); 

see also, e.g., A-Z Intern. v. Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003). 

15 See, e.g., United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 779, 810 (9th Cir. 2008), citing 

DaimlerChrysler v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 (2006); United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 

1005, 1010 (9th Cir. 2000).

16 Peralta v. Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005).

17 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Case 3:20-cv-00229-JMK Document 5 Filed 11/10/20 Page 4 of 7
3:20-cv-00229-JMK, Garner v. Brown

Order of Dismissal

Page 5 of 7

Mr. Garner’s Complaint alleges a small claims dispute. The Complaint does not 

cite to a federal statute, nor does it allege sufficient facts to state a viable federal 

constitutional claim.

18 Because the complaint does not clearly describe a violation 

of the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute that is redressable by a private citizen 

in federal court, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this 

case. 

Diversity jurisdiction requires that the plaintiff have “citizenship which is 

diverse from that of every defendant” and an amount in controversy greater than 

$75,000.19 This means that this Court could have jurisdiction over a case 

(including one involving only state law issues) when the plaintiff demonstrates that 

he is a citizen of a different state than the citizenship of each of the defendants.20 

The Complaint indicates that $5,500.00 is the amount in controversy. This amount

is well below the $75,000.00 required amount for diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, 

this Court does not have diversity jurisdiction over his complaint, regardless of the 

amount in controversy alleged.

18 See Docket 1.

19 28 U.S.C. § 1332; See Cook v. AVI Casino Enterprises, Inc., 548 F.3d 718, 722 (9th 

Cir. 2008) (quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (diversity jurisdiction 

requires “complete diversity of citizenship”)).

20 Id. (quoting Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377).

Case 3:20-cv-00229-JMK Document 5 Filed 11/10/20 Page 5 of 7
3:20-cv-00229-JMK, Garner v. Brown

Order of Dismissal

Page 6 of 7

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds it has neither federal question 

jurisdiction nor diversity jurisdiction over this case. Therefore, this Court has no 

subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. When a court determines “that it lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”21 In light of the 

foregoing, Mr. Garner’s Complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction.

II. The District Court for the State of Alaska

The District Court for the State of Alaska is a trial court of limited jurisdiction 

to established to hear specific state law claims.22 For instance, the District Court 

for the State of Alaska may preside over criminal misdemeanors under Alaska 

state law, civil suits involving and less than $100,000.00 in controversy, small 

claims, and presumptive death hearings.23 The District Court for the State of 

Alaska in Anchorage is at 825 West 4th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99501-2004.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. 

2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

21 Fed. R. Civ. P. (12)(h)(3).

22 AS 22.15.070.

23 See AS 22.15.030–AS 22.15.030.060.

Case 3:20-cv-00229-JMK Document 5 Filed 11/10/20 Page 6 of 7
3:20-cv-00229-JMK, Garner v. Brown

Order of Dismissal

Page 7 of 7

3. The Clerk of Court shall submit a final judgment. Further, the Clerk of Court 

shall return Dockets 1–3 to Mr. Garner along with a copy of this order.

DATED at Anchorage, Alaska this 10th day of November, 2020.

/s/ Joshua M. Kindred

JOSHUA M. KINDRED

 United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-00229-JMK Document 5 Filed 11/10/20 Page 7 of 7