govinfo:USCOURTS-akd-3_23-cv-00124-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA 
 
KALEB LEE BASEY, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
KYLE FREDERICK REARDON, et al.,  
 
Defendants. 
 
 
Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-JMK 
 
 
SCREENING ORDER 
Self-represented federal prisoner Kaleb Lee Basey ( “Plaintiff’) filed a 
complaint, a civil cover sheet, a motion to file exhibits, and a sealed declaration in 
support of his motion.1  Plaintiff asserts this is an action under:  
(1) The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) to order production of 
agency records;  
(2) Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule (60)(d)(l) and 28 U.S.C. §1331 seeking relief from 
this Court’s order in the certificate of appealability (“COA”) proceeding 
in U.S. v. Basey, No. 4:14-cr-00028-RRB (D. Alaska); and  
 
 1 Dockets 1–4. 
Case 3:23-cv-00124-SLG     Document 8     Filed 11/28/23     Page 1 of 13
Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-JMK, Basey v. Reardon, et al. 
Screening Order 
Page 2 of 13 
(3) 28 U.S.C. §1331 and the U.S. Constitution seeking equitable relief for 
a deprivation of Basey ’s liberty interest in access to pre-trial 
exculpatory information without due process of law.2 
Plaintiff names Kyle Frederick Reardon, Jolene Goeden, the United States 
of America, the Executive Office for the U.S. Attorney, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI Field Office of Anchorage, 
and the U.S. Attorney ’s Office for the District of Alaska as defendants 
(“Defendants”).
3  The Court now screens Plaintiff’s Complaint in accordance with 
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.  
SCREENING STANDARD 
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a district court is required to screen 
complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or 
officer or employee of a governmental entity, even if the filing fee has been paid.
4  
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 
 
 2 Docket 1.  
 3 Docket 1.  
 4 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A. 
Case 3:23-cv-00124-SLG     Document 8     Filed 11/28/23     Page 2 of 13
Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-JMK, Basey v. Reardon, et al. 
Screening Order 
Page 3 of 13 
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 
from such relief.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 exists when “ the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged 
pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.”7  Further, courts are not required 
to entertain duplicative or redundant lawsuits and may dismiss them as frivolous 
or malicious.8 
DISCUSSION 
The Court takes judicial notice9 of Plaintiff’s underlying criminal conviction in 
United States v. Basey, Case No. 4:14-cr-00028-RRB-1.  In that case, Plaintiff also 
filed for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, motion requesting discovery, 
reconsideration, recusal of the assigned judge, and appealed multiple court 
orders.10  The Court also takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s previous FOIA case 
 
 5 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).  
 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)).  
 7 See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). 
 8 See, e.g., Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (noting that courts may dismiss under 
§ 1915 a complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims).  
 9 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a 
party’s proof, of a well -known and indisputable fact; the court ’s power to accept such a fact. ”  
Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201. 
10 See United States v. Basey, Case No. 4:14-cr-00028-RRB.  See also United States v. Basey, 
784 Fed. App’x 497 (9th Cir. 2019) (denying direct appeal); United States v. Basey, Nos. 4:20 -
Case 3:23-cv-00124-SLG     Document 8     Filed 11/28/23     Page 3 of 13
Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-JMK, Basey v. Reardon, et al. 
Screening Order 
Page 4 of 13 
seeking information various agencies compiled in connection with his 
prosecution.11 
I. Failure to State a Claim 
To determine whether a complaint states a valid claim on which relief may 
be granted, courts consider whether the complaint contains sufficient factual 
matter that, if accepted as true, “ state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its 
face.”12  In conducting its review, a court must liberally construe a self-represented 
plaintiff’s pleading and give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt. 13  Factual 
allegations must not be speculative; rather, a plaintiff must plead “factual content 
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 
for the misconduct alleged. ”
14  Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
(“Rule 8”) instructs that a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of 
the claim showing that the [complainant] is entitled to relief[.]”15  While a complaint 
need not, and should not, contain every factual detail, “unadorned, the defendant-
 
cv00015-RRB, 4:14-cr-00028-RRB-1, 2022 WL 636115 (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2022) (affirming denial 
of § 2255 motion and subsequent Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion); In re Basey v. 
USDC-AK, 2022 WL 6685216 (9th Cir. July 12, 2022) (denying petition for mandamus); Basey v. 
United States, 142 S. Ct. 1434 (2022) (denying petition for writ of certiorari). 
11 See Basey v. Dep’t of the Army, No. 4:16-cv-00038-TMB (D. Alaska 2018). 
12 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 
570 (2007)).   
13 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)). 
14 Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. 
15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 
Case 3:23-cv-00124-SLG     Document 8     Filed 11/28/23     Page 4 of 13
Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-JMK, Basey v. Reardon, et al. 
Screening Order 
Page 5 of 13 
unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s] ” are insufficient to state a claim. 16  A 
complaint is insufficiently plead if it offers “naked assertions devoid of further 
factual enhancement.”17  
II. Improper Joinder 
Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a plaintiff to join 
as many claims as he has against an opposing party in one action.  Multiple parties 
may be joined as defendants in one action only “if any right to relief is asserted 
against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of 
the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and 
. . . any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.”
18  
Unrelated claims that involve different defendants must be brought in separate 
lawsuits.
19  Rule 18 prevents confusion, ensures that prisoners pay the required 
filing fees for each lawsuit asserted, and prevents prisoners from circumventing 
the three-strikes rule set forth under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
20   
While Plaintiff’s claims all center around his theory that the “[g]overnment is 
withholding exculpatory information regarding the lack of proof of the reality of the 
 
16 Id. 
17 Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). 
18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). 
19 See Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1350- 51 (9th Cir. 1997); Kealoha v. Espinda, 2017 
WL 741570, at *4 (D. Haw. 2017); Tagle v. Nev. Dep’t of Corr., 2016 WL 910174, at *2 (D. Nev. 
2016); Washington v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 2016 WL 6599812, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2016). 
20 See George, 507 F.3d at 607; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 
Case 3:23-cv-00124-SLG     Document 8     Filed 11/28/23     Page 5 of 13
Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-JMK, Basey v. Reardon, et al. 
Screening Order 
Page 6 of 13 
alleged minors depicted at his trial all in violation of Brady v. Maryland,”21 he may 
not improperly join them in this case.  Nonetheless, in the interests of judicial 
economy, the Court considers the three claims asserted by Plaintiff below.  
III. Claim One 
Plaintiff brings Claim 1 under the Freedom of Information Act ( “FOIA”) to 
order production of agency records improperly being  withheld from Plaintiff. 22  
Liberally construed, Plaintiff is able to state facts to allege a plausible claim 
regarding his new FOIA request for information previously withheld on the basis 
the disclosure could have interfered with his ongoing criminal case. 23  However, 
Plaintiff’s Complaint fails under Rule 8.  Plaintiff’ s Complaint is neither short nor 
plain.  Plaintiff’s initial filings include a 66 -page Complaint, almost 80 pages of 
documents, and a motion to file two additional exhibits under seal. 24  During 
screening, a court is not required “to wade through exhibits to determine whether 
cognizable claims have been stated. ”25  Additionally, o nly federal agencies are 
proper party defendants in FOIA litigation. 26  Consequently, neither the agency 
 
21 Docket 1 at 13.  See also 33 U.S. 83 (1963). 
22 Docket 1.  
23 Docket 1 at 13–14.  See also Basey v. Dep’t of the Army, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227506 (D. 
Alaska 2018). 
24 Dockets 1–4.  
25 Woodrow v. Cty. of Merced, No. 1:13-cv-01505-AWI, 2015 WL 164427, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 2015). 
26 5 U.S.C.A. § 552(a)(4)(B) (granting district courts “jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from 
withholding agency records improperly withheld from complainant”) (emphasis added); 5 U.S.C.A. 
§ 552(f)(1) (defining term “agency”). 
Case 3:23-cv-00124-SLG     Document 8     Filed 11/28/23     Page 6 of 13
Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-JMK, Basey v. Reardon, et al. 
Screening Order 
Page 7 of 13 
head nor other federal employees are proper parties to a FOIA suit,  nor is the 
United States.27   
The Court accords Plaintiff 30 days to amend his FOIA claim in accordance 
with the guidance herein.  The burden is on Plaintiff, the FOIA requestor, to show 
an agency has (1) improperly; (2) withheld; (3) agency records. 28  However, 
Plaintiff may not assert a claim based on a request for the same records previously 
sought or produced.29   
IV. Claims Two and Three  
Plaintiff brings Claim 2 under Fed. R. Civ. P. (60)(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 
seeking relief from this Court’s order in the certificate of appealability (“COA” ) 
proceeding in United States v. Basey, Case No. 4:14 -cr-00028-RRB.  Plaintiff 
brings Claim 3 under “28 U.S.C. §1331 and the U.S. Constitution seeking equitable 
relief for a deprivation of Basey’s liberty interest in access to pre-trial exculpatory 
information without due process of law.”30  
As an initial matter, Section 1331 does not confer constitutional or federal 
statutory rights.  Instead, it provides t he district courts with original jurisdiction of 
all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.  
 
27 Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774, 786 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming district court’s dismissal of FOIA 
claims against defendants because “they are all individuals, not agencies”). 
28 Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980); Cal-Almond, 
Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture, 960 F.2d 105, 108 (9th Cir. 1992).  
29 Docket 1 at 15.  See also Basey v. Dep’ t of the Army, Case No. 4:16-cv- 00038-TMB, 
Dockets 39, 49. 
30 Docket 1.  
Case 3:23-cv-00124-SLG     Document 8     Filed 11/28/23     Page 7 of 13
Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-JMK, Basey v. Reardon, et al. 
Screening Order 
Page 8 of 13 
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. 31  
Further, while Rule 60(d) makes clear that it “does not limit a court’s power to . . . 
entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or 
proceeding” or “set aside a judgment for fraud on the court,” a person may not 
disguise a second or successive habeas petition by styling it as a Rule 60 motion 
to avoid habeas filing restrictions.32   
Plaintiff claims he “is not challenging a judgment in a habeas case, he is  
challenging the COA order or proceeding which the Supreme Court regards as a 
separate and distinct proceeding from the merits ruling in a habeas case.”  Plaintiff 
claims the “COA order is void and should not be enforced.”33  He seeks a “decree 
relieving Basey of the prior COA ruling, and a de novo COA ruling conducted by 
this Court.”34  As in other filings, Plaintiff includes inapposite citations, legally 
flawed arguments, and issues previously ruled upon. 35  Further, the Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Mr. Basey ’s certificate of appealability on 
 
31 Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F. 3d 188, 190 (9th Cir. 1995); Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 
329, 340-41 (1997). 
32 Christian v. Thomas, 982 F.3d 1215, 1220 (9th Cir. 2020). 
33 Docket 1 at 41.  
34 Docket 1 at 41.  
35 See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); see also United States v. Allen,  157 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 1998) 
(explaining that claim is considered “successive” if the “basic thrust or gravamen of the legal claim 
is the same, regardless of whether the basic claim is supported by new and different legal 
arguments” (internal quotations omitted)); Heffington v. United States,  2009 WL 2043012, at *4 
(E.D. Cal. 2009) (Petitioners ’ contention that he may bring a motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C. 
§ 2255 proceeding under Rule 60(d) “is without merit”). 
Case 3:23-cv-00124-SLG     Document 8     Filed 11/28/23     Page 8 of 13
Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-JMK, Basey v. Reardon, et al. 
Screening Order 
Page 9 of 13 
January 18, 2022, and denied his motion for reconsideration on January 31, 
2022.36  The Supreme Court of the United States of America denied his petition 
for a writ of certiorari on January 23, 2023. 37  The Court declines to engage in 
further analysis.  
V. Prosecutorial Immunity  
Assistant U.S. Attorneys are entitled to absolute immunity from a civil action 
when the attorney performs a function that is “intimately associated with the judicial 
phase” of a criminal process. 38 Plaintiff brings suit against Defendant Kyle 
Reardon in his official capacity as the primary prosecutor in Plaintiff’s underlying 
criminal case. 39  Plaintiff has not presented any facts to support a claim that 
Defendant Reardon or any other Assistant United States Attorney was acting 
outside the scope of his prosecutorial duties or engaged in administrative or 
investigative functions.  Further, even charges of malicious prosecution, 
falsification of evidence, coercion of perjured testimony and concealment of 
exculpatory evidence will be dismissed on grounds of prosecutorial immunity.
40  
 
36 Case No. 4:14-cr-00028-RRB, Dockets 403, 404. 
37 Docket 415.  
38 See Fry v. Melaragno, 939 F.2d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Liao v. Ashcroft,  2009 WL 
1371691, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (absolute prosecutorial immunity applies to deputy attorney 
general’s “official conduct in [defending] the government in a prior state court action”). 
39 Docket 1 at 12.  
40 See Stevens v. Rifkin, 608 F. Supp. 710, 728 (N.D. Cal. 1984). 
Case 3:23-cv-00124-SLG     Document 8     Filed 11/28/23     Page 9 of 13
Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-JMK, Basey v. Reardon, et al. 
Screening Order 
Page 10 of 13 
Because the allegations involve actions taken within the scope of the criminal 
proceedings, Defendant Reardon is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. 
CONCLUSION 
Plaintiff is accorded 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended 
complaint.  An amended complaint replaces the prior complaint in its entirety. 41  
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.”42  An amended complaint 
need not contain legal research or analysis, but it must contain sufficient facts that 
state a plausible claim for relief.  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.  An amended complaint should not contain a 
narrative and it should not contain or have attached to it unrelated or unnecessary 
documentation.  
Although Plaintiff has been given the opportunity to amend, he shall  not 
unjustifiably expand the scope of the case by alleging new unrelated claims or 
parties in the amended complaint.
43  Any amended complaint may not include any 
claims or defendants for which Plaintiff lacks a sufficient legal or factual basis.  
While a court may act with leniency towards a self- represented litigant for 
 
41 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and Local Civil Rule 15.1. 
42 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).   
43 See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 
Case 3:23-cv-00124-SLG     Document 8     Filed 11/28/23     Page 10 of 13
Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-JMK, Basey v. Reardon, et al. 
Screening Order 
Page 11 of 13 
procedural violations, all litigants are expected to review and comply with the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules, and all Court orders. 44  
“Every paper filed with the Clerk of this Court, no matter how repetitious or 
frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources.  A part of the 
Court’s responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that 
promotes the interests of justice.”
45  Under Rule 11, when a party—even one who 
is self-represented— presents a pleading to a court they must certify “that to the 
best of the person ’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry 
reasonable under the circumstances the claims, defenses, and other legal 
contentions are warranted by existing law or nonfrivolous argument ” and “the 
factual contentions have evidentiary support. ”
46  Under Local Civil Rule 11.2, the 
Court is well within its power to impose sanctions for rules violations, including 
fines, costs, and attorney ’s fees awards.  Beyond these rules -based options, a 
federal district court possess inherent powers to manage their own affairs in order 
to achieve orderly dispositions.
47  This includes fashioning sanctions for conduct 
that abuses the judicial process or is in bad faith.48  “Flagrant abuse of the judicial 
 
44 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: https://www.uscourts.gov/rules -policies/current-rules-
practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure; Court’s Local Rules: https://www.akd.uscourts 
.gov/court-info/local-rules-and-orders/local-rules. 
45 In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989) (per curiam). 
46 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2–3). 
47 America Unites for Kids v. Rousseau, 985 F.3d 1075, 1088 (9th Cir. 2021). 
48 Id. 
Case 3:23-cv-00124-SLG     Document 8     Filed 11/28/23     Page 11 of 13
Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-JMK, Basey v. Reardon, et al. 
Screening Order 
Page 12 of 13 
process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to preempt the use of 
judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of 
other litigants.”
49 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 
 
1. Plaintiff’ s Complaint at Docket 1 is DISMISSED for failing to state a 
claim upon which relief could be granted.  
2. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend Claim 1 in accordance with 
the guidance provided in this order.  
3. Plaintiff’ s Claims 2 and 3 are DISMISSED with prejudice.  
4. Plaintiff’ s claims against Defendants Reardon, the Exec. Office for the 
U.S. Attny’s, and the U.S. Attorney ’s Office for the District of Alaska  are 
DISMISSED with prejudice. 
5. Plaintiff’s motion at Docket 3 is DENIED.  
6. Plaintiff is accorded Plaintiff is accorded 30 days from the date of this 
order to file one of the following: 
a. First Amended Complaint, in which Plaintiff restates his claim to 
address the deficiencies identified in this order.  An amended 
complaint must be on the Court ’s form, which is being provided to 
Plaintiff with this order; OR 
 
49 De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148. 
Case 3:23-cv-00124-SLG     Document 8     Filed 11/28/23     Page 12 of 13
Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-JMK, Basey v. Reardon, et al. 
Screening Order 
Page 13 of 13 
b. Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, in which Plaintiff elects to close and 
end this case. 
7. If Plaintiff does not file either an Amended Complaint or Notice of 
Voluntary Dismissal on the Court form within 30 days, this case may be dismissed 
with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) without further notice to Plaintiff. 50  
This dismissal would count as a “strike” against Plaintiff under §  1915(g).51  A 
voluntary dismissal does not count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 
8. Self-represented litigants are expected to review and comply with the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules, and all Court orders.  
Failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions authorized by law, 
including dismissal of this action. 
9. With this order, the Clerk is 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; and 
(3) form PS23, Notice of Change of Address. 
DATED this 28th day of November, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska. 
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred    
JOSHUA M. KINDRED 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
50 See Harris v. Mangum, 863 F.3d 1133, 1143 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that a dismissal counts as 
a strike when the district court dismisses a complaint for a failure to state a claim, grants leave to 
amend, and the plaintiff fails to amend the complaint). 
51 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) prohibits a prisoner who files more than three actions or appeals in any 
federal court in the United States which are dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to 
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, from bringing any other actions without 
prepayment of fees unless the prisoner can demonstrate that he or she is in “imminent danger of 
serious physical injury.” 
Case 3:23-cv-00124-SLG     Document 8     Filed 11/28/23     Page 13 of 13

Passage view · GavelSight