Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_23-cv-00231/USCOURTS-akd-3_23-cv-00231-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

TIDIANE KONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATRINA BAKER, 

Defendant.

Case No. 3:23-cv-00231

ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS

Before the Court are numerous pending motions filed by Plaintiff Tidiane 

Kone. At Docket 59, Defendants filed an omnibus response to the motions at 

Dockets 47, 51, 54, 55, 56, and 57, and filed separate oppositions to the motions 

at Dockets 43 and 46. Defendants did not respond to the remaining motions. An 

additional motion at Docket 65 filed by Mr. Kone is not yet ripe. 

Plaintiff Kone, a self-represented prisoner, initiated this action in October 

2023. In June 2024, the Court found that Mr. Kone’s Third Amended Complaint 

(“TAC”) stated a viable cause of action against former correctional officer Katrina 

Baker alleging excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; at Docket 22, 

the Court issued an order directing service of the TAC on Defendant and a 

response from the named Defendant. Defended duly answered the TAC on 

October 28, 2024; thereafter, the Court entered a scheduling order at Docket 41

on October 31, 2024. 

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 66 Filed 01/15/25 Page 1 of 6
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Baker, et al.

Order re. Pending Motions

Page 2 of 6

Thereafter, Mr. Kone has filed 13 motions, each of which this order 

addresses as follows:

1. Docket 43, Motion to Appoint Counsel. Defendants responded in opposition 

to the motion at Docket 49. The motion is DENIED. Mr. Kone has not shown 

the requisite “exceptional circumstances” justifying the Court to request a 

volunteer attorney on his behalf. Nor are there volunteer attorneys available 

in this district for pro bono prisoner representation at this time. See 28 

U.S.C. §1915(e)(1). Moreover, Mr. Kone’s assertion that Defendant and 

other DOC officers are blocking his access to the Court is at odds with the 

fact that he has recently filed the 13 pending motions, together with 

numerous other filings in both this Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. 

2. Docket 45, Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and 

Affidavit. This motion is DENIED as moot. The Court previously granted 

Mr. Kone’s earlier applications at Dockets 3 and 4 to waive prepayment of 

the filing fee. See Docket 14 at 15, ¶ 4. 

3. Docket 46, Motion for Injunctive Relief. Defendants responded with 

opposition to the motion at Docket 60. The motion is DENIED. Plaintiff has 

failed to meet the standard justifying preliminary injunctive relief. Further, 

as Defendant set forth in her opposition, she is no longer employed by the 

Department of Corrections (“DOC”); therefore, preliminary injunctive relief 

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 66 Filed 01/15/25 Page 2 of 6
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Baker, et al.

Order re. Pending Motions

Page 3 of 6

that orders Defendant to take certain actions during the pendency of this 

case is unavailable. See Docket 60 at 2; Docket 61 at 1, ¶ 2. 

4. Docket 47, Motion for Hearing. It appears by this motion that Mr. Kone 

seeks a Court-appointed attorney so that he can take one or more 

depositions. The motion is DENIED without prejudice. Mr. Kone may file 

a motion seeking to take a deposition of a particular individual, explain why 

that deposition is necessary to pursue his case, and explain how he 

intends to coordinate the deposition. The Court previously explained this 

procedure to Mr. Kone in its order at Docket 41, page 2, fn. 3. 

5. Docket 48, Request for Extension of Time to File Amending Pleadings.

Defendants did not respond to this motion. The deadline to file amended 

pleadings expired on January 2, 2025. The request at Docket 48 was filed 

before that deadline, but is nonetheless DENIED. If Mr. Kone seeks to file 

an amended pleading at this time, he must show good cause why the

Scheduling Order should be amended to permit an amended complaint. 

In addition, he must attach a copy of his proposed amended pleading to 

the motion, which he failed to do with this motion. See District of Alaska 

Local Civil Rule 15.1(a).

6. Docket 51, Motion for Disclosure and Discovery. Mr. Kone’s request for 

initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 is 

DENIED. As explained by Defendant in her response, that rule is not 

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 66 Filed 01/15/25 Page 3 of 6
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Baker, et al.

Order re. Pending Motions

Page 4 of 6

applicable to cases brought by a prisoner without an attorney. Mr. Kone 

may seek discovery pursuant to the applicable Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Such discovery should be sought directly from Defendant’s 

attorney by proper requests for production, interrogatories, and/or requests 

for admission. The Court generally does not become involved in discovery 

production unless and until a dispute arises. 

7. Docket 54, Motion for Extension of Time for Scheduling Order. Plaintiff 

sought to extend the deadlines in the Scheduling Order in case he was 

appointed a pro bono attorney, which this Court has denied, and to address 

alleged false accusations against Plaintiff made by law library personnel 

or staff. Neither asserted reason is good cause to extend the deadlines in 

the Scheduling Order and therefore, the motion is DENIED.

8. Docket 55, Motion for Reconsideration of Preliminary Injunction and TRO.

The motion to reconsider the order denying the first preliminary injunction

is untimely and therefore DENIED. That order was entered on February 9, 

2024 and motions to reconsider must ordinarily be filed within 7 days after 

entry of the order. 

9. Docket 56, Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Transport Prisoners to Testify at 

Hearing. The motion is DENIED because the Court is not scheduling any 

hearings at this time. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] prisoner 

. . . cannot demand to be present at any stage in the development of his 

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 66 Filed 01/15/25 Page 4 of 6
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Baker, et al.

Order re. Pending Motions

Page 5 of 6

civil case”; nor is a prisoner entiled to an order transporting his witnesses 

to testify in person at Court. However, the Court has used 

videoconferencing for some trial testimony in certain cases. If this case 

proceeds to trial, Mr. Kone may seek such relief. 

10. Docket 57, Motion for Supplemental Pleadings Cruel and Unusual 

Punishment. The motion is DENIED. If Mr. Kone seeks to file an amended 

complaint at this time, he must file the proposed amended complaint and 

explain why there is good cause to allow for the amendment at this time. 

See discussion in paragraph 5, above.

11. Docket 62, Motion for Conference of the Parties: Planning for Discovery.

Defendants did not respond to this motion. This motion is DENIED without 

prejudice. Plaintiff may propound specific discovery requests on 

Defendant, through her attorney, as noted above. If Defendant fails to 

timely respond, Plaintiff may file a motion to compel pursuant to Civil Rule 

37, after first trying to resolve the issue with Defendant’s counsel in good 

faith. 

12. Docket 63, Motion for Notice. Defendants did not respond to this motion. It 

is unclear what relief from this Court Plaintiff is seeking in this filing; 

accordingly, the motion is DENIED. 

13. Docket 64, Notice for Proposed Order. The Court reads this notice as a 

request for a judicial settlement conference. Defendants did not respond 

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 66 Filed 01/15/25 Page 5 of 6
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Baker, et al.

Order re. Pending Motions

Page 6 of 6

to this motion. Good cause being shown, IT IS ORDERED that the motion 

is GRANTED as follows: the Court will request another judicial officer of 

this Court to participate at a judicially conducted settlement conference; 

the conference will either be in person or held telephonically, as 

determined by that judicial officer. A separate order on this settlement 

conference shall be issued by the settlement judge.

IT IS SO ORDERD this 15th day of January, 2025.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 66 Filed 01/15/25 Page 6 of 6