United States District Court, D. Alaska
MICHAEL L. MCLAUGHLIN, Plaintiff,
SHANNON S. MCCLOUD, et al ., Defendants.
ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS
L. GLEASON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case was recently assigned to the undersigned
judge. Before the Court are three pending
motions: Plaintiff's Motion Seeking Entry of a Final
Judgment, at Docket 19; Supplemental Prisoner's
Application to Waive Prepayment of the Filing Fee, at Docket
36; and Plaintiff's Motion Seeking Clarification Upon the
Procedural Ramifications of Opting to Stand as Plead, at
McLaughlin initiated this case by filing a complaint in March
2018, alleging violations of his civil rights. In September
2018, the Court issued a Screening Order that dismissed Mr.
McLaughlin's complaint for failure to state a claim and
prosecutorial immunity. On January 9, 2019, Mr. McLaughlin
filed a First Amended Complaint. The Court issued a Second
Screening Order with respect to the First Amended Complaint
on March 8, 2019, which dismissed the First Amended Compliant
for failure to state a claim, “because it fails to
provide a short plain description of his allegations, ”
among other reasons. However, Mr. McLaughlin was given another
opportunity to file an amended complaint. Rather than file an
amended complaint, however, on April 9, 2019, Mr. McLaughlin
filed a 17-page document entitled “Notice of His Intent
to Stand as Pled Within Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint.” In the notice, Mr. McLaughlin takes issue
with the district court's Second Screening Order that
dismissed without prejudice his Second Amended Complaint,
indicating that he “simply does not see any benefit in
amending his complaint a third time.” Instead, Mr.
McLaughlin indicated it was his intention to pursue an
order filed on May 16, 2019, the district court acknowledged
Mr. McLaughlin's notice. The Court gave Mr. McLaughlin
additional time to file an amended complaint, and indicated
if Mr. McLaughlin were to still seek a final judgment in lieu
of amendment, he could so inform the Court. After receiving
extensions of time until September 30, 2019, on October 3,
2019, Mr. McLaughlin filed a “Motion Seeking
Clarification Upon the Procedural Ramifications of Opting to
Stand as Plead, ” along with a new motion to waive
prepayment of the filing fee.
“motion to clarify, ” Mr. McLaughlin again takes
issue with the screening orders. He also seeks clarification
of three issues: “(1) clarification upon the specific
grounds for dismissal as to each of the enumerated counts . .
., ” (2) clarification upon dismissal of the state law
tort claims . . ., ” and “(3) clarification upon
this court's apparent refusal and/or non-compliance with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
3(d)(1).” In particular, if the state law claims he
has attempted to plead are dismissed, Mr. McLaughlin seeks
for that dismissal to be without prejudice.
on the foregoing, the Court rules as follows:
Motion for Clarification at Docket 38 is DENIED. The Court
has already ruled on these questions and provided Mr.
McLaughlin its reasoning in multiple orders.
motion seeking entry of a final judgment at Docket 19 is
GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED. All of the federal law
claims are dismissed with prejudice, for failure to state a
claim. All of the state law claims are
dismissed without prejudice, as the Court declines to
exercise jurisdiction over these claims. The Clerk of Court
is directed to enter a final judgment accordingly.
Supplemental Prisoner's Application to Waive Prepayment
of the Filing Fee at Docket 36 is GRANTED in order for Mr.
McLaughlin to proceed on appeal.
Whether the dismissal of this action should count as a
“strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) may
be determined in the event Mr. McLaughlin files another
federal civil court case. See generally Andrews v.
King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005).
See Docket 43.