Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_23-cv-00231/USCOURTS-akd-3_23-cv-00231-0/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.

OFFICER BARSON,

1

Defendant.

Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG

SCREENING ORDER

On October 4, 2023, self-represented prisoner Tidiane Kone filed a civil 

complaint (“Complaint”), a civil cover sheet, and two applications to waive 

prepayment of the filing fee.2In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that on or about 

September 10, 2023, Office Barson used excessive force in violation of Plaintiff’s 

rights under the 8th Amendment.3 Then, on November 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a 

First Amended Complaint claiming Sergeant M. Koncaba violated his right to be 

free from cruel and unusual punishment on October 7, 2023, and the Department 

of Corrections denied him medical care on October 12, 2023.4In the included 

narrative and attached motion for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff also challenged 

1 Plaintiff originally named “Officer Barker” as a defendant but substituted Defendant’s true 

name “Officer Barson” in his Second Amended Complaint. Docket 11. The case caption has 

been updated accordingly.

2 Dockets 1-4.

3 Docket 1. 

4 Docket 7-1 at 3-4. 

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 14 Filed 02/09/24 Page 1 of 17
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Barson

Screening Order 

Page 2 of 17

a disciplinary proceeding and described multiple instances of alleged retaliation—

including harassment, missing money, excessive force, cold temperatures, and 

denial of eyeglasses.5 Then, on January 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended 

Complaint alleging Officer Barson retaliated against him again on December 31, 

2023.6 On January 25, 2024, Plaintiff notified the Court he had recently been

transferred from Spring Creek Correctional Center to the Mat-Su Pretrial Facility.7

Although it is apparent from the filings that Plaintiff intended each amended 

complaint to supplement his earlier filings, in federal court, an “amended complaint 

supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.”8

Therefore, the Court denies the motion for leave to file the first amended complaint 

at Docket 7 as moot and screens the Second Amended Complaint filed at Docket 

11 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.

SCREENING STANDARD

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court is required to screen 

complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or 

5 Docket 8 at 1-3.

6 Docket 11 at 3. 

7 Although Mat-Su is classified as a Pre-Trial Facility, Plaintiff appears to have been a convicted 

prisoner during all alleged events. See Docket 8 at 1.

8 Valadez-Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 851, 857 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). See also Local

Civil Rule 15.1(a) (An “amended pleading must not incorporate by reference any prior pleading, 

including exhibits.”).

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 14 Filed 02/09/24 Page 2 of 17
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Barson

Screening Order 

Page 3 of 17

officer or employee of a governmental entity.9In 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.10

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.”11 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.12 Futility exists when “the 

allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly 

cure the deficiency.”13

9 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A.

10 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

11 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)).

12 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)).

13

 See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 

1986).

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 14 Filed 02/09/24 Page 3 of 17
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Barson

Screening Order 

Page 4 of 17

DISCUSSION

In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims Defendant Barson has 

been retaliating against him since Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging excessive force 

by Defendant Barson.14 Plaintiff believes he is a target of racial profiling, and that 

no other inmate is being subjected to the same unreasonable searches or use of 

force to which he alleges he has been subjected.

15

 Plaintiff also generally brings 

allegations of “unsafe prison conditions.”

16

 

For relief, Plaintiff seeks $50,000.00 in damages and an order requiring 

defendants to stop harassing and targeting him.17

I. Requirements to State a Claim 

To determine whether a complaint states a valid claim on which relief may 

be granted, 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.”18 In conducting its review, a court must liberally construe a self-represented 

14 Docket 11.

15 Docket 11 at 3.

16 Docket 11 at 7. 

17 Docket 11 at 8. Plaintiff also maintains he is entitled to summary judgment because Defendants 

have not answered the complaint. But persons named as defendants are not required to file an 

answer or other response to a self-represented prisoner’s complaint until after the Court has 

completed its mandatory screening process and determined that the complaint states at least 

one cognizable claim. 

18 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 570 (2007)). 

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 14 Filed 02/09/24 Page 4 of 17
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Barson

Screening Order 

Page 5 of 17

plaintiff’s pleading and give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.19 Factual 

allegations must not be speculative; rather, a plaintiff must plead “factual content 

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged.”20 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 [complainant] is entitled to relief[.]” A complaint should set out 

each claim for relief separately. Each claim should identify (1) the specific harm 

that a plaintiff is alleging has occurred to him, (2) when that harm occurred, (3) 

where that harm was caused, and (4) who he is alleging caused that specific harm 

to him. 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.21 A complaint is insufficiently plead if it offers “naked assertions 

devoid of further factual enhancement.”22

The Second Amended Complaint does not contain sufficient plausible facts, 

accepted as true, to meet the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure for a civil rights action. Therefore, the Court must dismiss the Second 

Amended Complaint. However, the Court grants leave to amend certain claims in 

accordance with the guidance provided herein. 

19 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)).

20 Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678.

21 Id.

22 Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 14 Filed 02/09/24 Page 5 of 17
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Barson

Screening Order 

Page 6 of 17

II. Plaintiff’s Claims for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief are Mooted 

by his Transfer to a Different Facility 

“To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a litigant must have suffered, or 

be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to 

be redressed by a favorable judicial decision."23 "If an event occurs that prevents 

the court from granting effective relief, the claim is moot and must be dismissed."24

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address on January 20, 2024, indicating 

he has been transferred to a different facility.

25 Without evidence of an expectation 

that he will be transferred back to the Spring Creek facility, Plaintiff’s requests for 

injunctive and declaratory relief are mooted by his transfer.26 Therefore, Plaintiff’s

request for injunctive relief at Docket 8 must be denied. In any amended complaint, 

Plaintiff must not include claims for injunctive or declaratory relief. However, 

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint to pursue monetary damages in 

accordance with the guidance provided below. 

23 Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990); accord Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, 

Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).

24 Am. Rivers v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 1997).

25 Docket 13. 

26 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).

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 14 Filed 02/09/24 Page 6 of 17
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Barson

Screening Order 

Page 7 of 17

III. 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 (1) the defendant acting under color of state 

law (2) deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the federal Constitution or federal 

statutes.27 A state correctional officer acting during her employment is a state 

actor. 

A person acting under the color of state law “‘subjects’ another to the 

deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of Section 1983, if the 

person does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits 

to perform an act which he or she is legally required to do that causes the 

deprivation of which complaint is made.”28 A plaintiff must allege that he suffered 

a specific injury as a result of the conduct of a particular defendant, and the plaintiff

must allege an affirmative link between the injury and the conduct of that 

defendant.29

IV. Conditions of Confinement 

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual 

punishment and “embodies ‘broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized 

standards, humanity and decency.’”30 Conditions of confinement may, consistent 

27 Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986).

28 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

29 See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).

30 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976) (internal citation omitted).

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 14 Filed 02/09/24 Page 7 of 17
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Barson

Screening Order 

Page 8 of 17

with the Constitution, be restrictive and harsh.31 When considering the conditions 

of confinement, a federal court must analyze each condition separately to 

determine whether that specific condition violates the Eighth Amendment.32 The 

court should also consider the amount of time to which the prisoner was subjected 

to the condition.33 “Some conditions of confinement may establish an Eighth 

Amendment violation ‘in combination’ when each would not do so alone, but only 

when they have a mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a 

single, identifiable human need such as food, warmth, or exercise.”34 To prevail 

on a claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement, a plaintiff must 

demonstrate a deprivation of “the minimal civilized measures of life's 

necessities.”35

V. Excessive Force

“[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force 

in violation of the [Eighth Amendment], the core judicial inquiry is ... whether force 

was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously 

31 See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981); Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 

1045 (9th Cir. 2006); Osolinski v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1996); Jordan v. Gardner, 986 

F.2d 1521, 1531 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc).

32 See Toussaint, 801 F.2d at 1107; Wright, 642 F.2d at 1133.

33 See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 686–87 (1978); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042 

(9th Cir. 2005).

34 Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991); see also Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1151 

(9th Cir. 2010); Osolinski, 92 F.3d at 938–39; Toussaint, 801 F.2d at 1107; Wright, 642 F.2d at 

1133.

35 Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1084 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 

832 (1994)).

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 14 Filed 02/09/24 Page 8 of 17
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Barson

Screening Order 

Page 9 of 17

and sadistically to cause harm.”36 “[S]ubjective intent is critical in an Eighth 

Amendment analysis. More than de minimis force applied for no good faith law 

enforcement purpose violates the Eighth Amendment.”37 Where a prison official 

has acted in response to an immediate disciplinary need, because of the risk of

injury to inmates and prison employees and because prison officials will not have

time to reflect on the nature of their actions, the “malicious and sadistic” standard, 

as opposed to the “deliberate indifference” standard, applies.38 Whether in the 

context of a prison-wide disturbance or an individual confrontation between an 

officer and prisoner, corrections officers often must act immediately and 

emphatically to defuse a potentially explosive situation.”39 When determining 

whether the force is excessive, the court should look to the “extent of injury ... , the 

need for application of force, the relationship between that need and the amount 

of force used, the threat ‘reasonably perceived by the responsible officials,’ and 

‘any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.’ ”40

36 Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6–7 (1992); see also Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320–

21 (1986); Hughes v. Rodriguez, 31 F.4th 1211,1221 (9th Cir. 2022) (“In excessive force cases 

brought under the Eighth Amendment, the relevant inquiry is whether force was applied in a 

good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause 

harm.”).

37 Rodriguez, 891 F.3d at 797(citing Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320–21).

38 See Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320–21; Rodriguez, 891 F.3d at 796 (9th Cir. 2018) (“A plaintiff 

cannot prove an Eighth Amendment violation without showing that force was employed 

‘maliciously and sadistically’ for the purpose of causing harm.”)

39 Jordan, 986 F.2d at 1528 (citations omitted). 

40 Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7 (quoting Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321).

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 14 Filed 02/09/24 Page 9 of 17
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Barson

Screening Order 

Page 10 of 17

VI. Unreasonable Cell Searches 

Decisions regarding prison security are “peculiarly within the province and 

professional expertise of corrections officials, and, in the absence of substantial 

evidence in the record to indicate the officials have exaggerated their response to 

these considerations, courts should ordinarily defer to their expert judgment in 

such matters.”41 “[C]orrectional officials must be permitted to devise reasonable 

search policies to detect and deter the possession of contraband in their facilities,” 

and such a policy “must be upheld ‘if it is reasonably related to legitimate 

penological interests.’ ”42 Prisoners have no right of privacy in their cells,

43 so 

Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim under the Fourth Amendment. Further, as 

explained below, Plaintiff has not pleaded facts to support that the cell search was 

motivated by discrimination or in retaliation.

VII. Equal Protection

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that all 

persons who are similarly situated be treated alike.44 The Fourteenth Amendment 

41 Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 827 (1974); see also Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of 

Cnty. of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318, 326 (2012) (“The difficulties of operating a detention center 

must not be underestimated by the courts.”).

42 Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318, 328 (2012) (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 

U.S. at 89).

43 See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525–26 (1984); see also Seaton v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 

530, 534 (9th Cir. 2010) (recognizing a right of privacy in traditional Fourth Amendment terms is 

fundamentally incompatible with the continual surveillance of inmates and their cells required to 

ensure security and internal order).

44 Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001).

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 14 Filed 02/09/24 Page 10 of 17
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Barson

Screening Order 

Page 11 of 17

is not violated by unintentional conduct that may have a disparate impact.45 To 

state a claim for a violation of this provision, a plaintiff must plausibly allege facts 

that if proven, would demonstrate that a defendant acted with an intent or purpose 

to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon the plaintiff’s membership in 

a protected class.”46 Disparate treatment is the initial element of an equal 

protection claim and Plaintiff has not alleged facts to support a finding of 

discrimination based on Plaintiff’s membership in a protected class. Therefore, 

Plaintiff fails to state a claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause. 

VIII. Retaliation 

Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, an individual 

has the right to be free from governmental action taken to retaliate against his 

exercise of First Amendment rights—such as access to the courts— or to deter the 

individual from exercising those rights in the future.47 Prison officials may not 

retaliate against prisoners for exercising their First Amendment rights to pursue 

litigation or file administrative grievances.48 

A First Amendment claim for retaliation has five elements: (1) adverse action 

by a state actor against the inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected 

45 See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977); Washington 

v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239 (1976).

46 Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998).

47 Sloman v. Tadlock, 21 F.3d 1462, 1469-70 (9th Cir. 1994).

48 Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2005).

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 14 Filed 02/09/24 Page 11 of 17
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Barson

Screening Order 

Page 12 of 17

conduct, and the action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment 

rights and (5) did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.49 To 

establish the “because of” element, an inmate “must show that his protected 

conduct was the substantial or motivating factor behind the defendant’s conduct.”50

If the adverse action would have been taken even without the inmate’s exercise of 

protected conduct, the plaintiff cannot satisfy the “because of” element of the 

retaliation claim.”51 A plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the exercise 

of his First Amendment rights was a substantial or motivating factor behind the 

defendant's conduct.

52

“[M]ere speculation that defendants acted out of retaliation 

is not sufficient.”53

Plaintiff claims he has been retaliated against since filing this lawsuit, but he 

has not connected any actions by Defendant Barson with an intent to chill Plaintiff’s 

First Amendment activity. Further, he claims the alleged events were motivated by 

racial discrimination. Yet given the length of time between the alleged events that 

occurred, and the multiple correctional officers allegedly involved, it is unlikely 

Plaintiff could plead any additional facts that could cure this deficiency. 

49 Chavez v. Robinson, 12 F.4th 978, 1001 (9th Cir. 2021).

50 Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted) (quoting Soranno’s 

Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989)).

51 Docket 12 at 9.

52 Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977). 

53 Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 904 (9th Cir. 2014).

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 14 Filed 02/09/24 Page 12 of 17
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Barson

Screening Order 

Page 13 of 17

Nonetheless, although amendment to state a First Amendment claim is likely futile, 

the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend this claim.

CONCLUSION 

Plaintiff is accorded 30 days from the date of this order to file a third 

amended complaint. An amended complaint replaces the prior complaint in its 

entirety.54 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.”55 An amended 

complaint need not contain legal research or analysis, but each claim must contain 

sufficient facts that state a plausible claim for relief. 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. An amended complaint should 

not contain a narrative and it need not contain or have attached to it medical 

records or other documentation. 

Although Plaintiff has been given the opportunity to file an amended 

complaint, he shall not unjustifiably expand the scope of the case by alleging new 

unrelated claims.56 An amended complaint may not include any claims or 

defendants for which Plaintiff lacks a sufficient legal or factual basis. An amended 

complaint must set out each claim for relief separately. Each claim should identify 

54 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; Local Civil Rule 15.1.

55 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

56 See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 14 Filed 02/09/24 Page 13 of 17
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Barson

Screening Order 

Page 14 of 17

(1) the specific injury that the plaintiff is alleging has occurred, (2) when that injury 

occurred, (3) where that injury was caused, and (4) who the plaintiff is alleging 

caused that specific injury.

Parties may be joined as defendants in one action only “if any right to relief 

is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or 

arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or 

occurrences; and ... any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise 

in the action.”57 In other words, joining more than one claim is only proper when it 

is against one defendant, and joining multiple defendants in one complaint is only 

proper when the action is based on the same facts that involve multiple 

defendants. Unrelated claims that involve different defendants must be brought in 

separate lawsuits.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint at Docket 11 is DISMISSED

for failing to state a to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court 

grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint for damages in accordance with 

the guidance provided in this order. 

2. Plaintiff is accorded 30 days from the date of this order to file one of the 

following: 

57 Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 14 Filed 02/09/24 Page 14 of 17
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Barson

Screening Order 

Page 15 of 17

a. Third Amended Complaint, in which Plaintiff restates the claims to 

address the deficiencies identified in this order. 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 the case.

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

Voluntary Dismissal on the Court form, the case may be dismissed under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) without further notice to Plaintiff.

4. Plaintiff’s applications to waive prepayment of the filing fee at Dockets 

3-4 are GRANTED.

5. Plaintiff’s motions at Dockets 7-9 are DENIED as moot. 

6. Plaintiff is advised federal law only allows prisoners to waive 

prepayment of the fees associated with civil lawsuits. Prisoners must pay the filing 

fee incrementally until paid in full, regardless of the outcome of the action.58 Should 

Plaintiff proceed with this lawsuit and sufficiently plead a claim for relief in an 

amended complaint, the Court will issue a separate order on the collection of the 

filing fee.

7. If Plaintiff is released while this case remains pending and the filing 

fee has not been paid in full, Plaintiff must, within 30 days of his release, either 

58 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)&(2).

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 14 Filed 02/09/24 Page 15 of 17
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Barson

Screening Order 

Page 16 of 17

(1) pay the unpaid balance of his filing fee or (2) file a Non-Prisoner Application to 

Waive the Filing Fee (Form PS11).59 Failure to comply may result in dismissal of 

this action.

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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules, and all Court orders.60 

Failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions authorized by law, 

including dismissal of the action.

9. 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.

10. 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.61 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 

59

 The Court’s template forms are available upon request from the Clerk’s office and on the 

Court’s website at https://www.akd.uscourts.gov/forms.

60

 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rulespractice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure; Court’s Local Rules: https://www.akd.uscourts. 

gov/court-info/local-rules-and-orders/local-rules.

61

 See Local Civil Rule 11.1(b) (requiring a notice of change of address to be filed, as “[s]elfrepresented parties must keep the court and other parties advised of the party’s current address 

and telephone number.”). 

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 14 Filed 02/09/24 Page 16 of 17
Case No. 3:23-cv-00231-SLG, Kone v. Barson

Screening Order 

Page 17 of 17

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 Plaintiff.

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

“THIRD AMENDED” written above the title “Prisoner’s Complaint Under the Civil 

Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983”; (2) form PS09, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; and 

(3) form PS23, Notice of Change of Address.

DATED this 9th day of February, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:23-cv-00231-SLG Document 14 Filed 02/09/24 Page 17 of 17