United States District Court, D. Alaska
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
SHARON
L. GLEASON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Stephen
Harmon, a self-represented prisoner, has filed a Civil Rights
Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and an Application to
Waive the Filing Fee under 28 U.S.C.
§1915(a).[1] Defendants, Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy
and Alaska Attorney General Clarkson, are both sued in their
official capacities.[2] For relief, Mr. Harmon requests a
declaration that the Governor and Attorney General have not
complied with their constitutional obligations to faithfully
execute the laws and that they have knowingly and
intentionally denied basic constitutional rights and due
process to Mr. Harmon and all Alaskans for over fifteen
years.[3] Mr. Harmon also requests that Alaska's
presumptive sentencing[4] and felony sentencing[5] statutes be
changed so as to be in accordance with United States Supreme
Court law, [6] in an emergency session of the legislature
to be called within thirty days of a court order, and that
the rewritten statutes be applied
retroactively.[7]
The
Court takes judicial notice[8] that Mr. Harmon was convicted of
sexual assault and murder, [9] sentenced to 129 years with
parole eligibility restricted to 99 years, and has been
denied state post-conviction relief several
times.[10] He has been denied habeas relief as
well.[11] Mr. Harmon maintains, however, that he
is not challenging his conviction or sentence in this
case.[12]
Screening
Requirements
Federal
law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a
complaint brought by a self-represented plaintiff who has not
paid the filing fee. In 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.[13]
To
determine whether a complaint states a valid claim for
relief, a court considers if it contains sufficient factual
matter that if accepted as true “state[s] a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.”[14] In conducting
its review, the court is mindful that it must liberally
construe a self-represented plaintiff's pleading and give
the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt.[15] Before a
court may dismiss any portion of a complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court
must provide the 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]
DISCUSSION
In both
of his claims for relief Mr. Harmon alleges that, in about
mid-2013, he was made aware that his Due Process rights were
being continually denied by the Governor (in Claim 1) and
Attorney General (in Claim 2) of the State of Alaska by the
imposition of unconstitutional laws.[17]
1.
Establishing this Court's Jurisdiction Over the
Case.
Jurisdiction
is “[a] court's power to decide a case or issue a
decree[.]”[18] As explained by the United States
Supreme Court, “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by
Constitution and statute.”[19] That is, the United
States Constitution or a federal statute must generally be at
issue to establish this Court's jurisdiction. It is Mr.
Harmon's burden, as the plaintiff, to show that this
Court has jurisdiction to hear his claims.[20]Mr. Harmon has
filed claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2.
Requirements for Filing an Action Under the Civil Rights
Act.
42
U.S.C. § 1983 “provides a cause of action for
state deprivations of federal rights.”[21] That is, a
plaintiff has “a cause of action against [1] state
actors who [2] violate an individual's rights under
federal law.”[22] Critically, a plaintiff must establish a
causal link between the state action and the alleged
violation of his or her rights.[23] These essential elements
must be alleged in a § 1983 claim.
Section
1983 “is not itself a source of substantive rights,
” but provides “a method for vindicating rights
[found] elsewhere.”[24] That is, § 1983 provides
a mechanism for remedying violations of pre-existing
constitutional or federal rights. 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.[25]Constitutional rights are those
conferred by the U.S. Constitution to individual citizens.
Thus,
to plead a proper § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege
plausible facts that if proven would establish each of the
following elements: (1) a violation of rights protected by
the Constitution or created by federal statute, (2)
proximately caused (3) by conduct of a person (4) acting
under color of state law. All of these elements must be
alleged in a complaint in order to maintain a § 1983
claim.
3.
Heck v. Humphrey bars any claim as to the validity of Mr.
Harmon's state conviction and/or sentence.
The
Supreme Court, in Wilkinson v. Dotson held that
Heck v. Humphrey[26] and its progeny bar §
1983 suits, absent prior invalidation of the conviction or
sentence, even when the relief sought is prospective
injunctive or declaratory relief, “if success in that
action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of
confinement or its duration.”[27]
Although
Mr. Harmon expressly and repeatedly states that he is not
challenging the fact or duration of his conviction or
sentence, he is challenging two sentencing statutes
that he claims were unconstitutional as applied to himself
and other Alaskans and seeking retroactive relief. A decision
invalidating either of those statutes would invalidate the
terms of Mr. Harmon's confinement; therefore,
Heck precludes Mr. Harmon from proceeding with this
Section 1983 action.
5.
Claim and Issue Preclusion.
Mr.
Harmon claims that, after he “became aware of this
denial of unlawful/unconstitutional state statutes for any
Alaskan, from 2013 to recently 2019 [he] tried to bring
attention to varies Alaska Courts (Trial Ct./Appeal Supreme
Ct. Ak.) and ‘NONE' would want or consider to hear
the Claim/ground … instead knowingly allow the Courts
to continue with acknowledged and ruled unconstitutional law
in/on the proceedings denying all Alaska due process and
lawful constitutional state statutes as required by the State
and Federal Constitutions.”[28]
Mr.
Harmon's repeated challenges to “the legality of
his sentence in light of the United States Supreme
Court's opinion in Blakely v.
Washington[29] have each been denied. On February 8,
2017, ...