Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00298/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00298-0/pdf.json

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

---

WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

DENALI NICOLE SMITH, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

) 

MICHAEL DUNLEAVY, in his official ) 

capacity of Governor of the State of Alaska, ) 

et al., ) 

) N o . 3 :19 - c v -0298-HRH

 Defendants. ) 

_______________________________________) 

O R D E R

Motion to Amend Complaint

Plaintiff Denali Nicole Smith moves to amend her complaint to add three plaintiffs,

substitute the Acting Commissioner of Revenue (Alaska) Mike Barnhill as a defendant in

place of Commissioner Bruce Tangeman, and “to articulate the remedies requested with

greater specificity.”1 The motion is opposed.2 Oral argument has not been requested and is

not deemed necessary. 

This case arises out of defendants’ denial of plaintiff’s eligibility for the 2019

Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD). Plaintiff alleges that she was denied eligibility for the

2019 PFD “because she is a woman married to a woman who is a member of the Armed

1Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint at 2, Docket No. 15. 

2Docket No. 20. 

ORDER – Motion to Amend Complaint - 1 -

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 29 Filed 02/14/20 Page 1 of 5
Forces of the United States. . . .”3

In her complaint, plaintiff asserts § 1983 due process and

equal protection claims against defendants. 

Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, absent the consent of an

opposing party, leave of court to amend must be secured. “The court should freely give leave

when justice so requires.” Id. But the court may “deny leave to amend when amendment

would be futile, when it would cause undue prejudice to the defendant, or when it is sought

in bad faith.” Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 603 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation

omitted). “Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of a motion for leave to

amend.” Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). 

A scheduling and planning order was entered in this case on December 27, 2019.4

The scheduling order expressly provided that: “[m]otions to amend pleadings, including

motions to add parties, shall be served and filed not later than February 28, 2020.”5 The

instant motion was timely filed, and the court takes seriously its obligation to freely give

leave to amend. However, the instant motion is problematic.6

First, plaintiffseeks to add three plaintiffs, Megan Hodge and her two minor children. 

In the proposed amended complaint, plaintiff asserts that Hodge and the two minor children

were denied eligibility for the 2019 PFD because Hodge “is a woman married to a woman

3Complaint at 3, ¶ 4, Docket No. 1. 

4Docket No. 13. 

5

Id. at 6. 

6Substituting Acting Commissioner of the Department of Revenue, Mike Barnhill, in

his official capacity as acting commissioner is not one of the problems. Such substitutions

in official capacity suits are automatic. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 n.11 (1985). 

ORDER – Motion to Amend Complaint - 2 -

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 29 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 5
who is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States. . . .”

7

In the proposed amended

complaint, the Hodges assert § 1983 due process and equal protection claims and seek

damages, injunctive, and declaratory relief. 

Amendment to add the Hodges as plaintiffs would be futile. First, to the extent that

the proposed amended complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the Hodges, such a

claim is futile under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 inasmuch as the defendants are sued in their official

capacities, not individually. Graham, 473 U.S. at 165-66; Will v. Michigan Dept. of State

Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989). Second, to the extent that the Hodges are seeking payment

of their 2019 PFDs and any appeal fees, such a claim is futile because the Hodges have

already received that relief.

8

In other words, this claim is moot. “An exception exists,

however, for controversies that are ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’” Hamamoto

v. Ige, 881 F.3d 719, 722 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United

States, 136 S. Ct. 1969, 1976 (2016)). “‘That exception applies only in exceptional

situations, where (1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fullylitigated prior

to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining

party will be subject to the same action again.’” Id. (quoting Kingdomware Techs., 136 S.

Ct. at 1976). Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint does not adequately plead any such

situation. Indeed, the court doubts that there is any reason to believe that defendants would

continue to fail to pay PFDs under the circumstances of this case or that any such repetition

would avoid review. Here, the proposed amended complaint does not adequately allege the

7Proposed First Amended Complaint at 3-4, ¶¶ 5-6, attached to Motion for Leave to

Amend Complaint, Docket No. 15. 

8See Declaration of Anne Weske at 4, ¶ 15, Exhibit A; and Exhibits B and C, 

SEALED Declaration of Rebecca H. Cain, Docket No. 27. 

ORDER – Motion to Amend Complaint - 3 -

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 29 Filed 02/14/20 Page 3 of 5
avoidance of mootness as to the Hodges’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief because

defendants’ alleged conduct is likely to be repeated and avoid review. 

In her reply, plaintiff argues that adding the Hodges as plaintiffs would not be futile

because “this action is to enforce the court’s October 12, 2014 order as to Plaintiffs and all

others similarly situated[.]”9Indeed, the proposed amended complaint is introduced by the

statement: “Plaintiffs, as set forth above, and on behalf of others similarly situated, hereby

complain and allege. . . .”10 In entering a scheduling and planning order, neither the parties

nor the court addressed this case as though it had been brought pursuant to Rule 23, Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.11 Based upon what is before the court at this point, it appears to

the court that plaintiff is trying to institute a class action without alleging any of the

prerequisites and without identifying the type of class action being brought. Thus, to the

extent that plaintiff is arguing that amending to add the Hodges as plaintiffs would be

appropriate because this is a class action, that argument fails. 

Second, plaintiff seeks to amend her complaint “to articulate the remedies requested

with greater specificity.”12 Plaintiff does not explain what exactly this means, but the 

proposed amended complaint appears to signal an attempt and purpose to grandly expand the

constitutional claims originally made. By the proposed amended complaint, plaintiff(s)

9Reply to Opposition to Motion for Leave to Amend at 3, Docket No. 23. 

10Docket No. 15-2 at 2. Similarly, plaintiff’s original complaint is introduced by the

statement: “Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others similarlysituated, herebycomplains and

alleges[.]” Docket No. 1 at 2. 

11Defendants continue to believe that “plaintiffs did not bring this case as a class

action . . . under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.” Opposition to Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

at 9, Docket No. 20. 

12Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint at 2, Docket No. 15. 

ORDER – Motion to Amend Complaint - 4 -

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 29 Filed 02/14/20 Page 4 of 5
would apparently seek to require the production of information about the denial of marriage

licenses by the state, the denial of medical benefits by the state, and the denial of retirement

benefits by the state to persons in same-sex marriages. On the basis of what is presently

before the court, the court is unpersuaded that either plaintiff or the proposed new plaintiffs

would have standing to bring claims based upon a refusal to issue marriage licenses or afford

state employees’ other benefits. Thus, this proposed amendment would be futile. 

Plaintiff’s motion to amend is denied. Mike Barnhill, in his official capacityas Acting

Commissioner of the Department of Revenue, State of Alaska, is substituted for Bruce

Tangeman. 

DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 14th day of February, 2020. 

/s/ H. Russel Holland 

United States District Judge 

ORDER – Motion to Amend Complaint - 5 -

Case 3:19-cv-00298-HRH Document 29 Filed 02/14/20 Page 5 of 5