Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_24-cv-00198/USCOURTS-akd-3_24-cv-00198-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allen
Defendant
Lela Denton
Defendant
Anthony Samuel Dillard
Plaintiff
Johnson
Defendant
Jay Jones
Defendant
Leslie Ramos
Defendant
Ryan Sherer
Defendant
Theresa Sherer
Defendant
Threatt
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

ANTHONY SAMUEL DILLARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

RYAN SHERER, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:24-cv-00198-SLG

ORDER OF DISMISSAL & NOTICE OF STRIKE

On September 9, 2024, self-represented prisoner Anthony Samuel Dillard 

(“Plaintiff”) filed a civil complaint, a civil cover sheet, an application to waive 

prepayment of the filing fee, a financial statement, and a letter.

1 Plaintiff alleges 

Defendants denied him adequate medical care in violation of his rights under the 

Eighth Amendment.

2 The Court has now screened the Complaint in accordance 

with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to 

adequately state a claim for which relief may be granted. The Court also finds the 

Complaint to be frivolous and that amendment would be futile. Therefore, the Court 

will not grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and dismisses this case 

with prejudice. 

1 Dockets 1-5.

2 Docket 1. 

Case 3:24-cv-00198-SLG Document 6 Filed 01/21/25 Page 1 of 12
Case No. 3:24-cv-00198-SLG, Dillard v. Sherer, et al.

Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike

Page 2 of 12

This dismissal counts as a strike under the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Prison 

Litigation Reform Act requires that a self-represented prisoner receive a “strike” if 

his case is dismissed “as frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted[.]”3 The “three strikes” provision was “designed to filter out 

the bad claims and facilitate consideration of the good.”4 Once a prisoner-plaintiff 

has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited from bringing any other cases in 

federal court without prepaying the full filing fee unless he makes “plausible 

allegations” that he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the 

time of filing his complaint.5Imminent danger requires an allegation that a harm is 

“ready to take place” or “hanging threateningly over one's head.”6It cannot be 

triggered solely by complaints of past injury or generalized fears of possible future 

harm.7In addition to being “imminent,” the alleged danger must also be “both fairly 

traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in [the] complaint and redressable by the 

court.”8

3 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(g).

4 Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007).

5 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

6 Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (cleaned up).

7

Id. at 1053 (“The exception's use of the present tense, combined with its concern only 

with the initial act of ‘bring[ing]’ the lawsuit, indicates to us that the exception applies if 

the danger existed at the time the prisoner filed the complaint.”).

8 Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022) (adopting nexus requirement between 

the alleged imminent danger and the violations of law alleged in the complaint for 

imminent danger exception to the PLRA three-strikes provision).

Case 3:24-cv-00198-SLG Document 6 Filed 01/21/25 Page 2 of 12
Case No. 3:24-cv-00198-SLG, Dillard v. Sherer, et al.

Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike

Page 3 of 12

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.9 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.10

In conducting its screening review, 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.11 However, a court is not 

required to accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable inferences, or 

unwarranted deductions of fact.12 Further, a court cannot act as an attorney for a 

self-represented litigant, such as by supplying the essential elements of a claim.

13

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

9 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A.

10 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

11Bernhardt v. L.A. County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding a court must 

construe pleadings filed by self-represented litigants liberally and afford the complainant 

the benefit of any doubt).

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

marks and citation omitted).

13 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-00198-SLG Document 6 Filed 01/21/25 Page 3 of 12
Case No. 3:24-cv-00198-SLG, Dillard v. Sherer, et al.

Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike

Page 4 of 12

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

incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice.14 Such 

documents that contradict the allegations of a complaint may fatally undermine the 

complaint's allegations.15

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.16 

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

pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.”17

DISCUSSION

I. Requirements to State a Claim

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[.]”18 While a complaint need not, and should not, 

contain every factual detail, “unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 

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

15 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”).

16 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)).

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

Cir. 1986).

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

Case 3:24-cv-00198-SLG Document 6 Filed 01/21/25 Page 4 of 12
Case No. 3:24-cv-00198-SLG, Dillard v. Sherer, et al.

Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike

Page 5 of 12

accusation[s]” are insufficient to state a claim.19 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.”20 A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant 

is liable for the misconduct alleged.”21 A plaintiff must allege that he suffered a 

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

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

defendant.22

II. 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 that (1) the defendant acting under color of 

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

federal statutes.23 To act under color of state law, a complaint must allege that the 

defendant acted with state authority as a state actor.24 To be deprived of a right, 

19 Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555).

20 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,

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

21 Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678.

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

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

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

Case 3:24-cv-00198-SLG Document 6 Filed 01/21/25 Page 5 of 12
Case No. 3:24-cv-00198-SLG, Dillard v. Sherer, et al.

Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike

Page 6 of 12

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

or an enforceable right created by a federal statute.

25

 Section 1983 does not 

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

for remedying violations of pre-existing federal rights.26 

III. Claims for Inadequate Medical Care 

Under the Eighth Amendment, a convicted prisoner has the right to be free 

from “cruel and unusual punishments.” This includes the right to receive adequate 

medical care. To prevail on such claim, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts, that 

if accepted as true, support each of the following elements:

(1) the plaintiff faced a serious medical need; 

(2) the defendant was deliberately indifferent to that serious 

medical need: that is, the defendant knew of the plaintiff’s

serious medical need and disregarded it by failing to take 

reasonable measures to address it; and

(3) the defendant’s act or failure to act caused harm to the 

plaintiff. 27

299, 326 (1941)).

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

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

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

27 See Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Civil Jury Instructions, Instruction 9.27 and the 

cases cited therein. 

Case 3:24-cv-00198-SLG Document 6 Filed 01/21/25 Page 6 of 12
Case No. 3:24-cv-00198-SLG, Dillard v. Sherer, et al.

Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike

Page 7 of 12

An Eighth Amendment claim based on deliberate indifference must satisfy 

both an objective and a subjective component test.28 In other words, the official 

must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a 

substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”29

Plaintiff claims on or about February 13, 2024—after having a knee 

replacement surgery—he was discharged from the Alaska Regional Hospital and 

returned back to the Spring Creek DOC facility, where he was assigned to a cell in 

the medical segregation housing unit.30 Plaintiff brings claims for violations of his 

right to adequate medical care against eight individuals employed by DOC. 

Specifically, in Claim 1, Plaintiff alleges on or about February 13, 2024, Officer 

Allen violated his right to medical care when Officer Allen ignored Plaintiff’s request 

to see a nurse and covered his cell window with plastic.

31 At some point that same 

day, Nurse Jay Jones must have seen Plaintiff, because in Claim 2, Plaintiff alleges 

on or about February 13, 2024, Nurse Jones violated Plaintiff’s right to medical 

care when the nurse refused to assist Plaintiff with “the Polar car[e] cube” leaving 

him in pain all night.32 In Claim 3, Plaintiff alleges that on or about February 14, 

28 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (citing Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 

526-27 (1984)).

29 Cortez v. Skol, 776 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2015).

30 Docket 1 at 5.

31 Docket 1 at 5.

32 Docket 1 at 6. See also The Polar Care Cube Cold Therapy System, 

https://www.breg.com/products/cold-therapy/devices/cube-cold-therapy/, last visited 

10/23/2024.

Case 3:24-cv-00198-SLG Document 6 Filed 01/21/25 Page 7 of 12
Case No. 3:24-cv-00198-SLG, Dillard v. Sherer, et al.

Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike

Page 8 of 12

2024, Nurse Theresa Sherer violated his right to adequate medical care when she 

stood in the doorway of his cell and “started shouting at [him] about 

paperwork...from the nurse at the Alaska Regional Hospital.”33 Plaintiff claims 

Nurse Sherer “started to get real emotional” and alleges she was harassing and 

insulting him.

34 Plaintiff also claims he asked her about his medication, but Nurse 

Sherer allegedly slammed the door and walked away instead of responding to 

him.

35 In Claim 4, Plaintiff claims on or about February 15, 2024, he spoke to Nurse 

Supervisor Lela Denton about the harassment he was experiencing from staff 

members, but she became upset with him and “added to” the harassment.36 In 

Claim 5, Plaintiff alleges Dr. Ryan Sherer violated his right to receive adequate 

medical care on February 15, 2024. Plaintiff claims that on that day, Dr. Sherer 

yelled at him, intended to insult him, judged him, and harassed him.

37 In Claim 6, 

Plaintiff alleges Officer Johnson violated his right to receive adequate medical care 

on February 15, 2024, when he refused to let Plaintiff take a shower or use the 

phone “on his watch.”38 In Claim 7, Plaintiff alleges Officer Threatts violated his 

right to receive adequate medical care on February 15, 2024, by also refusing to 

33 Docket 1 at 7.

34 Docket 1 at 7.

35 Docket 1 at 7. 

36 Docket 1 at 8.

37 Docket 1 at 9.

38 Docket 1 at 10.

Case 3:24-cv-00198-SLG Document 6 Filed 01/21/25 Page 8 of 12
Case No. 3:24-cv-00198-SLG, Dillard v. Sherer, et al.

Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike

Page 9 of 12

allow Plaintiff to shower.39 In Claim 8, Plaintiff claims he requested “something that 

could help or support” his knee, pain medication, and “something for inflammation,” 

but Provider Leslie Ramos violated his right to receive adequate medical care on 

or about March 19, 2024, by only giving him Tylenol and showing no interest in his 

recovery.

40

With the Complaint, Plaintiff also filed over 90 pages of records from DOC.41

Although the scope of a federal court’s 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.42 It is not the Court’s responsibility to review filings or exhibits to identify 

possible claims. However, documents that contradict the allegations of a complaint 

may fatally undermine the complaint's allegations.43

The allegations in the Complaint and the information contained in the 

attached documents demonstrate that Plaintiff received constitutionally adequate 

medical attention. And Plaintiff has not alleged any significant injury that was 

deliberately not treated by prison officials. Although Plaintiff may not have received 

39 Docket 1 at 11. 

40 Docket 1 at 12.

41 See Docket 1-1 (45 pages) and Docket 1-2 (48 pages). 

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

43 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”).

Case 3:24-cv-00198-SLG Document 6 Filed 01/21/25 Page 9 of 12
Case No. 3:24-cv-00198-SLG, Dillard v. Sherer, et al.

Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike

Page 10 of 12

the level of care he desired, the Eighth Amendment does “not require the highest 

quality of health care, the community standard of health care, or the most pleasant 

accommodations possible.”

44 Additionally, allegations of verbal harassment by 

correctional officers simply fail to state a constitutional claim cognizable 

under Section 1983.45

Despite Plaintiff’s allegations that he was only given Tylenol, the records that 

Plaintiff attached to his Complaint demonstrate that he was initially prescribed 

oxycodone, then acetaminophen, naproxen, and meloxicam, and later prescribed 

a mix of Tylenol and Codeine. Plaintiff was also given an antibiotic.46 Additionally, 

Plaintiff was prescribed ice and was expected to operate the polar care medical 

equipment himself.47 Plaintiff was seen by a physical therapist. His request for a 

44 Jensen v. Shinn, 609 F. Supp. 3d 789, 796 (D. Ariz. 2022).

45 See, e.g., Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996), amended 135 F.3d 

1318 (9th Cir. 1998) (disrespectful and assaultive comments by prison guard are not 

enough to implicate the Eighth Amendment); Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 

139 (9th Cir. 1987) (directing vulgar language at prisoner does not state constitutional 

claim).

46 See, e.g., Docket 1-1 at 9 (“Meloxicam has been ordered in addition to the Tylenol for 

the pain. It will also help with the inflammation.”); Docket 1-1 at 15 (“You have ice, 

tylenol, and meloxicam available to you as needed for pain. You have upcoming 

appointments with orthopedics.”); Docket 1-2 at 12 (“Continue the acetaminophen and 

the naproxen for pain. The oxycodone pain med will end when you leave the infirmary. 

You will continue on duricef antibiotic for another 7 days total after today.”); Docket 1-2 

at 30 (“After your appointment on 3/5 with Ortho, you were prescribed more pain 

medication and one of which helps with inflammation. Currently you are prescribed T3 

which is a mix of Tylenol and Codeine. All of this should help with the pain until you are 

seen by Ortho next.”).

47 See, e.g., Docket 1-1 at 7 (ordering “an ice pack Three times a day if needed for knee 

pain and swelling x 5 days”); Docket 1-1 at 41 (“The medical equipment you are 

referring to is your polar care. Before anyone leaves the hospital with one of these, they 

are taught how to use them. This is because when you go home, you are expected to 

Case 3:24-cv-00198-SLG Document 6 Filed 01/21/25 Page 10 of 12
Case No. 3:24-cv-00198-SLG, Dillard v. Sherer, et al.

Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike

Page 11 of 12

wheelchair was denied because he needed to “keep moving [his] knee.”48 Although 

Plaintiff claims he was admitted back to the Alaska Regional Hospital twice

because his right leg “got so bad,” on March 3, 2024 and March 22, 2024,

49 the 

records suggest those appointments were prescheduled follow-up appointments 

and not due to any unexpected decline in his condition or further injury.50 Finally, 

Plaintiff’s claims that his requests for assistance or medical care were ignored are 

belied by the records. For example, after investigating Plaintiff’s complaints that he 

was ignored by staff on his first night back at DOC, Lieutenant Callaway wrote a 

memorandum stating that the camera footage for that night showed Officer Allen 

speaking with Plaintiff five times, and Nurse Bryant and Nurse Jones speaking with 

Plaintiff 13 times.51 Further, DOC staff responded to numerous requests and 

grievances Plaintiff filed regarding his care.52 For these reasons, the Court finds 

Plaintiff’s claims to be frivolous and will not accord Plaintiff leave to file an amended 

complaint.

53

 

know how to operate it. Nurse JayJay saw you operate the machine at one point. Her 

responsibility with the machine was to get you ice when needed, not turn the machine 

on/off, or put it on your knee for you.”). 

48 Docket 1-1 at 9 (“A wheelchair is not recommended because you need to keep 

moving that knee.”)

49 Docket 1 at 12.

50 Docket 1-2 at 12 (noting Plaintiff was scheduled for “follow up with Ortho twice in 

March”). 

51 Docket 1-1 at 29.

52 See generally Dockets 1-1 and 1-2. 

53 See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that if a 

claim is classified as frivolous, “there is by definition no merit to the underlying action 

Case 3:24-cv-00198-SLG Document 6 Filed 01/21/25 Page 11 of 12
Case No. 3:24-cv-00198-SLG, Dillard v. Sherer, et al.

Order of Dismissal & Notice of Strike

Page 12 of 12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint at Docket 1 is DISMISSED. The Court finds 

amendment would be futile. 

2. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous. 

3. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

4. This dismissal counts as a STRIKE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

5. Once a plaintiff accumulates three strikes, he is prohibited from filing 

any future claims in federal court without paying the full filing fee, unless he can 

demonstrate he is facing “imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time 

he files his complaint “that is both fairly traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in his 

complaint and redressable by a favorable judicial outcome.54

6. The Clerk shall issue a final judgment and close this case. 

DATED this 21st day of January 2025, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason 

SHARON L. GLEASON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

and so no reason to grant leave to amend.”).

54 Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022).

Case 3:24-cv-00198-SLG Document 6 Filed 01/21/25 Page 12 of 12