Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_24-cv-00066/USCOURTS-akd-3_24-cv-00066-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Wade Davison
Plaintiff
Christine B. Joslin
Defendant
Mattew Sidders
Defendant
Jason R. Venable
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

MICHAEL WADE DAVISON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTEW SIDDERS, CHRISTINE B. 

JOSLIN, and JASON R. VENABLE,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:24-cv-00066-SLG

SCREENING ORDER

On March 19, 2024, self-represented prisoner Michael Wade Davison filed 

a civil complaint, a civil cover sheet, and an application to waive prepayment of the 

filing fee.

1 Plaintiff names three police officers, Mattew Sidders, Jason R. Venable, 

and Chrstine B. Joslin, as Defendants. The Court has now screened Plaintiff’s 

Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. For the reasons 

discussed in this order, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to adequately state a claim for 

which relief may be granted. Therefore, the Complaint is DISMISSED. Although 

amendment is likely futile, Plaintiff is accorded 60 days to file an amended 

complaint that corrects the deficiencies identified in this order. 

Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court takes 

judicial notice of the Courtview records of the Alaska Trial Courts.2 

1 Dockets 1-4.

2 See United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 

Case 3:24-cv-00066-SLG Document 7 Filed 08/13/24 Page 1 of 14
Case No. 3:24-cv-00066-SLG, Davison v. Sidders, et al.

Screening Order 

Page 2 of 14

SCREENING STANDARD

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a federal district court is required to 

screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental 

entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.3 In this screening, a district 

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.4

In conducting its screening review, a district court must liberally construe a 

self-represented plaintiff’s complaint and give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.5 

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.6 Futility 

F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (“We may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both 

within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation 

to matters at issue”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted.).

3 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A.

4 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

5 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)).

6 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)).

Case 3:24-cv-00066-SLG Document 7 Filed 08/13/24 Page 2 of 14
Case No. 3:24-cv-00066-SLG, Davison v. Sidders, et al.

Screening Order 

Page 3 of 14

exists when “the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading 

could not possibly cure the deficiency.”7

Although the scope of review generally is limited to the contents of the 

complaint, a court may also consider documents attached to the complaint, 

documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial 

notice.8 Such documents that contradict the allegations of a complaint may fatally 

undermine the complaint's allegations.9

DISCUSSION

I. Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations 

On or about November 9, 2023, two women were involved in a car 

accident.10 Plaintiff claims his girlfriend, Brianna Levy, was driving his car and was 

issued a citation for the accident.

11 According to the incident report attached to the 

Complaint, Plaintiff was not driving either vehicle, but he was interviewed regarding 

the incident.12 The Incident Report does not indicate whether any citations were 

issued or describe the condition of either vehicle. According to the state court 

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

Cir. 1986).

8 United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).

9 Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001), amended by 275 

F.3d 1187 (2001) (noting that a plaintiff can “plead himself out of a claim by including ... 

details contrary to his claims”).

10 Docket 1 at 5; Docket 1-1. 

11 Docket 1 at 5. 

12 Docket 1-1 (Incident Report Number AK23117785).

Case 3:24-cv-00066-SLG Document 7 Filed 08/13/24 Page 3 of 14
Case No. 3:24-cv-00066-SLG, Davison v. Sidders, et al.

Screening Order 

Page 4 of 14

records, Brianna Lynn Levy was issued a citation on November 9, 2023, for driving 

with a suspended license.13 While Plaintiff has subsequent charges for failing to 

comply with the orders and conditions of his release, it is unclear what charges

against Plaintiff—if any—resulted from this alleged incident.14

Plaintiff alleges the officers violated his rights under the Fourth and 

Fourteenth Amendments, The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 

of 1996 (“HIPAA”), and The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).

15 Plaintiff 

believes his rights were violated because the officers “had no reason to identify 

[him] or call [his] probation officer.16 Plaintiff also seems to believe it was 

unreasonable to require him to report to probation the following Monday when the 

officers knew his car had just been “totaled.”

17 Plaintiff claims loss of wages, stress, 

and defamation of character.18 He further alleges the officers are putting his 

“positive reformation and livelihood at risk” and asks that he be awarded punitive 

damages for their misconduct.19 Plaintiff also maintains that the officers violated 

13 See State of Alaska vs. Levy, Brianna Lynn, Case No. 3PA-23-04270MO, Docket 

(Date of Offense 11/09/2023; Charge 1: AS2815291A2-V1 - Infraction (Non-Criminal) 

AS28.15.291(a)(2): Drive w/ License Cancelled/Susp; Ticket # PALEE000001951051).

14 See, e.g., State of Alaska vs. Davison, Case No. 3PA-23-02519CR (re-opened 

12/21/23 due to failure to comply with the Order and Conditions of Release).

15 Docket 1. 

16 Docket 1 at 7. 

17 Docket 1 at 7.

18 Docket 1 at 7.

19 Docket 1 at 8.

Case 3:24-cv-00066-SLG Document 7 Filed 08/13/24 Page 4 of 14
Case No. 3:24-cv-00066-SLG, Davison v. Sidders, et al.

Screening Order 

Page 5 of 14

the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) because they won’t provide audio and 

video from the accident or provide the full names and badge numbers for the 

officers involved.20

II. Plaintiff May Only Represent Himself

Although Plaintiff only named himself as a plaintiff, he alleges his girlfriend’s 

HIPAA rights were violated.21 A non-attorney self-represented litigant may 

represent only his own interests,22 and has “no authority to appear as an attorney 

for others than himself.”23 Plaintiff cannot bring claims on behalf of his girlfriend. 

Accordingly, the Court only considers the claims affecting Plaintiff personally, and 

if Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, he shall do so only on his own 

behalf.

III. Requirements to State a Claim

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

court considers whether the complaint contains enough facts that if accepted as 

true, “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”24 A claim is plausible 

20 Docket 1 at 6.

21 Docket 1 at 4-5. 

22 28 U.S.C. § 1654.

23 See Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (non-attorney 

plaintiff may not attempt to pursue claim on behalf of others in a representative 

capacity); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995) (non-attorney 

party may not represent other plaintiffs).

24 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 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 Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lee v. City of Los Angeles,

Case 3:24-cv-00066-SLG Document 7 Filed 08/13/24 Page 5 of 14
Case No. 3:24-cv-00066-SLG, Davison v. Sidders, et al.

Screening Order 

Page 6 of 14

“when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”25

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[.]”26 

During screening, a district court must accept as true the allegations of the 

complaint, construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and 

resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor.27 However, a court is not required to 

accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or unwarranted 

deductions of fact.28 Further, a court cannot act as counsel for a self-represented 

litigant, such as by supplying the essential elements of a claim.29

IV. 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 

250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)).

25 Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678.

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

27Bernhardt v. L.A. County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (a court must construe pro 

se pleadings liberally and afford the pro se litigant the benefit of any doubt).

28 Doe I v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

29 Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 

F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Case 3:24-cv-00066-SLG Document 7 Filed 08/13/24 Page 6 of 14
Case No. 3:24-cv-00066-SLG, Davison v. Sidders, et al.

Screening Order 

Page 7 of 14

statutes.30 To act under color of state law, a complaint must allege that the 

defendant acted with state authority as a state actor.31 To be deprived of a right, 

the defendant’s action needs to either violate rights guaranteed by the Constitution 

or an enforceable right created by federal law.32 Section 1983 does not confer 

constitutional or federal statutory rights. Instead, it provides a mechanism for 

remedying violations of pre-existing federal rights.33 

V. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 

(“HIPAA”) 

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) 

restricts health care entities from disclosing protected health information. However, 

HIPAA does not provide a private cause of action and is not enforceable through 

Section 1983.34 Further, Plaintiff alleges Officer Venable violated his girlfriend’s 

HIPAA rights when he allegedly retrieved her name from the paramedic’s 

paperwork, and as discussed above, Plaintiff may not bring claims on behalf of 

others. Therefore, Plaintiff’s HIPAA claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

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

31 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 (1988) (quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 

299, 326 (1941)).

32 Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F. 3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995); Blessing v. Freestone, 

520 U.S. 329, 340-41 (1997).

33 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393–94 (1989).

34 Webb v. Smart Document Sols., LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir. 2007).

Case 3:24-cv-00066-SLG Document 7 Filed 08/13/24 Page 7 of 14
Case No. 3:24-cv-00066-SLG, Davison v. Sidders, et al.

Screening Order 

Page 8 of 14

VI. Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”)

Plaintiff claims he filed a Request for Information seeking all audio and video 

regarding the accident.

35 Plaintiff believes Defendants violated the Freedom of 

Information Act (“FOIA”) by withholding that information from him.36 FOIA allows a 

federal court “to enjoin [a federal] agency from withholding agency records and to 

order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the 

complainant.”37 However, FOIA does not provide access to records held by state 

or local government agencies.38 Because Plaintiff seeks records held by state or 

local police officers, FOIA does not apply. Therefore, this claim is DISMISSED with 

prejudice. 

VII. Search, Seizure, and Identification 

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of persons to be free from 

“unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government.39 But the United States 

Supreme Court has held that “[a]sking questions is an essential part of police 

investigations. In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for 

identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment. ‘[I]nterrogation relating to 

35 Docket 1 at 6. 

36 Docket 1 at 6. 

37 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). See also 5 U.S.C.A. § 552(f)(1) (defining term “agency”).

38 Plaintiff may be able to seek disclosure of the State’s records under Alaska law, but 

cannot pursue this claim in federal court. See Alaska Statute § 40.25.120. 

39 U.S. Const. amend. IV.

Case 3:24-cv-00066-SLG Document 7 Filed 08/13/24 Page 8 of 14
Case No. 3:24-cv-00066-SLG, Davison v. Sidders, et al.

Screening Order 

Page 9 of 14

one’s identify or a request for identification by the police does not, by itself, 

constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure.’”40

Plaintiff claims his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated 

when the police “illegally” identified him and failed to provide him with due process.

However, he has not provided sufficient facts to state a plausible claim. It appears 

Plaintiff voluntarily went to the scene of the accident to check on his girlfriend’s 

condition and to have his car towed.41 In this context, it was constitutionally

permissible for officers to request Plaintiff’s identification and proof of vehicle 

ownership when he arrived on scene to determine whether they could safely and 

responsibly release the vehicle to him.

42 It is also unclear who told Plaintiff to report 

to his probation officer and why. Regardless, to the extent Plaintiff believes he was 

wrongly charged with a probation violation or a new criminal charge, he may not 

bring such claims while any charges stemming from this incident are still pending 

in state court.43

40 Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 185 

(2004) (quoting INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216 (1984). 

41 Docket 1 at 5. 

42 See United States v. Thompson, 481 F. Supp. 3d 1128, 1133 (D. Montana 2020). 

43 See, e.g., Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. 36, 44 (2022) (“In accord with the elements of 

the malicious prosecution tort, a Fourth Amendment claim under § 1983 for malicious 

prosecution requires the plaintiff to show a favorable termination of the underlying 

criminal case against him.”).

Case 3:24-cv-00066-SLG Document 7 Filed 08/13/24 Page 9 of 14
Case No. 3:24-cv-00066-SLG, Davison v. Sidders, et al.

Screening Order 

Page 10 of 14

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is DISMISSED. Although 

amendment is likely futile,44 Plaintiff is accorded 60 days to file an amended 

complaint that corrects the deficiencies identified in this order. 

FILING AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

An amended complaint replaces the prior complaint in its entirety.45 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.”46 An amended complaint need not 

and should not contain legal research or analysis. Additionally, a plaintiff need not 

file exhibits or evidence to attempt to prove his case at the pleading stage.47

Rather, a complaint need only to allege sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 

to state a [plausible] claim for relief.48 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. 

Although Plaintiff has been given the opportunity to file an amended 

44 See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is 

proper when amendment would be futile).

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

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

47 Although the Court may also consider documents attached to the complaint, 

documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice, the 

scope of review at the screening generally is limited to the contents of the complaint.

United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).

48 Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2).

Case 3:24-cv-00066-SLG Document 7 Filed 08/13/24 Page 10 of 14
Case No. 3:24-cv-00066-SLG, Davison v. Sidders, et al.

Screening Order 

Page 11 of 14

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

unrelated claims. An amended complaint must not include any claims or 

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

complaint must not contain the claims that this Court has dismissed or found not 

viable.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A COPY OF THE POLICE REPORT

With his Complaint, Plaintiff filed Alaska Department of Public Safety 

Incident Report Number AK23117785.49 At Docket 6, Plaintiff asks for a copy of 

that report.

50 The report is a dark shade of grey making it difficult to read. Further, 

Plaintiff is responsible for keeping copies of everything filed with the Court.51 

Nonetheless, the Court acknowledges Plaintiff is in prison. Therefore, the Court 

will grant the motion to the extent that the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to 

send Plaintiff one courtesy copy of the two-page incident report at Docket 1-1 with 

this order. Should Plaintiff request copies of additional documents, filings, or orders 

in the future, Plaintiff is informed that the Clerk of Court charges 50 cents per page 

for reproducing any record or paper. 

49 Docket 1-1.

50 Docket 6. 

51 Docket 5.

Case 3:24-cv-00066-SLG Document 7 Filed 08/13/24 Page 11 of 14
Case No. 3:24-cv-00066-SLG, Davison v. Sidders, et al.

Screening Order 

Page 12 of 14

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint at Docket 1 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 that cures the deficiencies identified in this order. 

2. Plaintiff is accorded 60 days from the date of this order to file either:

a. First 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 timely file either an Amended Complaint or Notice 

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

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

4. Plaintiff’s application to waive prepayment of the filing fee at Docket

3 is GRANTED. 

5. 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.52 Should 

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

52 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)&(2).

Case 3:24-cv-00066-SLG Document 7 Filed 08/13/24 Page 12 of 14
Case No. 3:24-cv-00066-SLG, Davison v. Sidders, et al.

Screening Order 

Page 13 of 14

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

filing fee.

6. 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 

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

Waive the Filing Fee (Form PS11).53 Failure to comply may result in dismissal of 

this action.

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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules, and all Court orders.54 

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

including dismissal of the action.

8. 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.

9. 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, 

53

 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.

54

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

https://www.akd.uscourts. gov/court-info/local-rules-and-orders/local-rules.

Case 3:24-cv-00066-SLG Document 7 Filed 08/13/24 Page 13 of 14
Case No. 3:24-cv-00066-SLG, Davison v. Sidders, et al.

Screening Order 

Page 14 of 14

and its effective date.55 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 

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.

10. Plaintiff’s motion at Docket 6 is GRANTED to the extent that the Clerk 

shall include one courtesy copy of the report at Docket 1-1 with this order.

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

“FIRST 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; (3) 

form PS23, Notice of Change of Address; and (4) a copy of the two-page Incident

Report filed at Docket 1-1. 

DATED this 13th day of August 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason 

SHARON L. GLEASON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

55 See Local Civil Rule 11.1(b) (requiring a notice of change of address to be filed, as 

“[s]elf-represented parties must keep the court and other parties advised of the party’s 

current address and telephone number.”). 

Case 3:24-cv-00066-SLG Document 7 Filed 08/13/24 Page 14 of 14