govinfo:USCOURTS-akd-3_23-cv-00124-2

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 
ORDER OF DISMISSAL 
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  The Court screen ed the Complaint in accordance with 
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A and found it deficient.2  On November 28, 2023, 
the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint regarding his claim 
under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), but dismissed the remaining claims 
with prejudice.3  On December 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed three motions—a motion for 
reconsideration, a motion for leave to file his amended complaint without using the 
form PS01, and a motion to certify screening order for immediate appeal.
4 
 
 1 Dockets 1–4. 
 2 Docket 8. 
 3 Docket 8. 
 4 Dockets 9–11.  
Case 3:23-cv-00124-SLG     Document 12     Filed 02/02/24     Page 1 of 5
Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-JMK, Basey v. Reardon, et al. 
Order of Dismissal  
Page 2 of 5 
On January 2, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 
Kentucky transferred Basey v. United States Department of Justice, et al., 5 to this 
Court.6  Plaintiff opposed the venue transfer because, among other reasons, after 
filing his FOIA claims in the Eastern District of Kentucky, he “then filed identical 
FOIA claims in Alaska.”7  The Department of Justice did not object to the transfer 
of venue, explaining that Plaintiff’s “FOIA requests clearly relate to his federal 
conviction and the investigation that led to that conviction, so the search for those 
documents has begun in Alaska.”8 
Where a plaintiff repeats pending or previously litigated claims, it is proper 
to dismiss those claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 9  By Plaintiff’s own 
admission, his FOIA claims filed on June 8, 2023, in the instant case are identical 
to the FOIA claims previously filed in March 21, 2023, in the Kentucky case, which 
is now pending before the Court. 10  The Court finds these claims duplicative and 
will not allow Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in this case.  Therefore, 
this case is DISMISSED.  Further, for the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s 
motion for reconsideration at Dockets 9 is DENIED.  
 
 5 Case No. 5:23-cv-00091 (D. E.D. Ky. 2023), which was assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00005-SLG 
(D. Alaska 2024). 
 6 Case No. 3:24-cv-00005-SLG, Docket 28. 
 7 Case No. 3:24-cv-00005-SLG, Docket 25 at 21–22. 
 8 Case No. 3:24-cv-00005-SLG, Docket 21 at 2. 
 9 Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995).  
10 Case No. 3:24-cv-00005-SLG, Docket 25 at 21–22. 
Case 3:23-cv-00124-SLG     Document 12     Filed 02/02/24     Page 2 of 5
Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-JMK, Basey v. Reardon, et al. 
Order of Dismissal  
Page 3 of 5 
Motion for Reconsideration 
A “motion for reconsideration must accomplish two goals.  First, a motion for 
reconsideration must demonstrate reasons why the court should reconsider its 
prior decision.  Second, a motion for reconsideration must set forth facts or law of 
a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” 11  
Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for 
reconsideration, and reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal 
arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged 
decision.
12  “Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound 
discretion of the court.”13 
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration challenging the Court’s 
characterization of his claims, arguing FBI field officers are not prosecutors, and 
claiming the Court ignored precedent regarding prosecutorial immunity and 
Rule 60 challenges in habeas proceedings.
14  Plaintiff’s initial filings include a 66-
page Complaint (containing multiple sections and subsections ), almost 80 pages 
of documents, and a motion to file additional exhibits under seal. 15  Although 
Plaintiff takes issue with the Court’s characterization of his claims, the Court 
 
11 Donaldson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 947 F. Supp. 429, 430 (D. Haw. 1996). 
12 See Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 (D. Haw. 2005). 
13 White v. Sabatino, 424 F.  Supp. 2d 1271, 1274 (D. Haw. 2006) (quoting Navajo Nation v. 
Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003)). 
14 Docket 9.  
15 Dockets 1–4.  
Case 3:23-cv-00124-SLG     Document 12     Filed 02/02/24     Page 3 of 5
Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-JMK, Basey v. Reardon, et al. 
Order of Dismissal  
Page 4 of 5 
construed the Complaint as containing three claims based on the first three 
paragraphs of the Complaint and sections A through C under his jurisdiction 
section.
16  Upon review, the Court maintains Plaintiff’s “six” claims ultimately can 
be grouped into three main arguments.  Specifically, Plaintiff argues:  
(1) the DOJ, FBI, and EOUSA violated FOIA by wrongfully 
withholding agency records;  
 
(2) the Court’s order denying his certificate of appealability 
in U.S. v. Basey, Case No. 4:14-cr-000028-RRB was improper; and  
 
(3) his due process rights were violated during his federal 
criminal prosecution.
17 
 
The Court granted leave to file an amended complaint regarding the alleged 
violations of FOIA.  The Court dismissed the remaining claims , which essentially 
challenge rulings by the Alaska District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals and repackage Plaintiff’s previous unsuccessful attempts to challenge his 
criminal conviction.  The Court also dismissed any claims against former Assistant 
U.S. Attorney Reardon and the U.S. Attorney’s Office based on prosecutorial 
immunity.18  As in other filings, Plaintiff includes inapposite citations, legally flawed 
arguments, and arguments previously rejected by the Court.19  Nothing in Plaintiff’s 
 
16 Docket 1 at 1–6. 
17 See generally Docket 1.  
18 Despite Plaintiff’s assertion, the Court did not imply agents for the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation or dismiss claims against any FBI agents based on prosecutorial immunity.  Rather, 
the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims as collateral attacks his criminal conviction. 
19 Cf. 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)); 
Case 3:23-cv-00124-SLG     Document 12     Filed 02/02/24     Page 4 of 5
Case No. 3:23-cv-00124-JMK, Basey v. Reardon, et al. 
Order of Dismissal  
Page 5 of 5 
motion sets forth any valid grounds for reconsideration, and the Court declines to 
engage in further analysis. 20  Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration at Docket 9 is 
DENIED. 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 
1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration at Docket 9 is DENIED . 
2. This case is DISMISSED as frivolous .  
3. This dismissal counts as a STRIKE under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(g).21 
4. Plaintiff’s motions at Dockets 10–11 are DENIED as moot.  
5. The Clerk shall issue a final judgment.  
DATED this 2nd day of February, 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska. 
/s/ Johsua M. Kindred    
JOSHUA M. KINDRED 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
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.”). 
20 See Ogden v. CDI Corp., No. CV 20-01490-PHX-CDB, 2021 WL 2634503, at *3 (D. Ariz. 2021) 
(denying a motion for reconsideration when plaintiff did “nothing more than disagree with this 
Court as to the relevant law”). 
21 See Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1028 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he fact that a prisoner pays the 
docket fee is no barrier to a court, when dismissing the case as frivolous, directing that the 
dismissal count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).”). 
Case 3:23-cv-00124-SLG     Document 12     Filed 02/02/24     Page 5 of 5

Passage view · GavelSight