govinfo:USCOURTS-akd-3_25-cv-00374-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA 
RICHARD EUGENE KIENITZ, 
 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
UNKNOWN PROVIDER, et al., 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS 
Self-represented litigant Richard Eugene Kienitz (“Plaintiff”) has filed a 
complaint, a First Amended Complaint, and numerous miscellaneous documents 
in this case. As required by federal law, the Court will review Plaintiff’s claims in 
the First Amended Complaint and issue a Screening Order that will indicate 
whether this case may proceed in the federal district court. 1 Cases are typically 
reviewed in the order in which they are received by the Court.2 
The Court declines to prioritize its screening review in this case but must 
address Plaintiff’s pending motions and other improper filings. The Court 
recognizes that documents filed by self-represented litigants are to be construed 
liberally, and that federal courts must act with some leniency toward those without 
legal training.
3 However, this leniency does not require the Court to rewrite 
 
1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A). 
2 If a case is deficient at the time of filing, the screening review is based on the date the 
deficiencies are cured. 
3 See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 

 
Case No. 3:25-cv-00374-ACP, Kienitz v. Unknown Provider, et al. 
Order on Pending Motions 
Page 2 of 12 
deficient pleadings or motions.4 Nor can the Court provide legal advice or act as a 
party’s attorney.5 Self-represented litigants are expected to review and comply with 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the District of Alaska’s Local Civil Rules, and 
all Court orders.6 
I. Motions Generally 
It is not permissible to write or otherwise try to directly communicate with the 
judge assigned to a case, and the Court will not consider future requests made by 
Plaintiff in the form of a letter. In order to seek relief from the Court, a party must 
file a motion.
7 Except for alternative requests for relief or as otherwise provided by 
rule or order of the Court, each motion must only contain one request for relief.8 A 
motion should contain the information identified in the caption of this order and 
should be titled “Motion for (state the relief requested).” For nondispositive 
 
4 See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). 
5 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). 
6 See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (permitting parties in federal court to represent themselves or 
be represented by an attorney, subject to the court’s rules); Local Civil Rule 1.1(a)(3) 
(“All parties, including self-represented parties, must comply with these Local Rules and 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. References in these rules to “counsel” or 
“attorneys” also refer to self-represented parties.”). See also U.S. Courts, Federal Rules 
of Civil Procedure, https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-
procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure; U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, 
Local Rules and Orders, https://www.akd.uscourts.gov/court-info/local-rules-and-
orders/local-rules. 
7 See Fed. R. Civ. P . 7(b)(1) (“A request for a court order must ... state with particularity 
the grounds for seeking the order” and “state the relief sought.”); Alaska Local Civil Rule 
7.1(a) (requiring all written motions and oppositions to include “a brief statement” of the 
requested relief and supporting authorities). 
8 Local Civil Rule 7.1(e); see also Local Civil Rule 5.1(f)(2). 

 
Case No. 3:25-cv-00374-ACP, Kienitz v. Unknown Provider, et al. 
Order on Pending Motions 
Page 3 of 12 
motions—motions that do not resolve the main claims or end the case—a litigant 
must include a proposed order that the Court can issue if the motion is granted. 9 
The proposed order helps to clarify what the moving party is asking the Court to 
order. 
The Court acts to resolve all pending cases in the most efficient manner 
possible. A federal district court is a trial court simultaneously addressing a volume 
and variety of cases of varying priorities; and a part of the Court's responsibility is 
“to see that [its] resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of 
justice.”
10 Accordingly, the Court cannot issue orders and rulings purely on the best 
timeline for a litigant. 
Once a motion has been filed, Plaintiff is required to wait for a ruling. 
Plaintiff must not file a motion if he has another motion on the same subject 
matter already pending before the Court, and he must refrain from 
unnecessarily increasing the number of filings by requesting a ruling on an 
already-pending motion. 
II. Plaintiff’s motion for relaxed rules 
At Docket 10, Plaintiff field a motion for “relaxed rules” and supporting 
 
9 Local Civil Rule 7.1(b). 
10 In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989) (per curiam). See also O'Loughlin v. 
Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[f]lagrant abuse of the judicial 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.”). 

 
Case No. 3:25-cv-00374-ACP, Kienitz v. Unknown Provider, et al. 
Order on Pending Motions 
Page 4 of 12 
affidavit. While Plaintiff is correct that self-represented prisoner pleadings must be 
held to less stringent standards, a motion requesting such treatment is 
unnecessary. The Court will rule on pending motions and screen Plaintiff’s 
Complaint in due course consistent with its statutory and inherent authority. To the 
extent Plaintiff seeks any relief beyond the ordinary liberal construction afforded to 
self-represented litigants, Plaintiff’s motion at Docket 10 is DENIED. 
III. Plaintiff’s motions related to case process and timing 
At Docket 11, Plaintiff filed an “emergency” motion to expedite trial, and at 
Docket 12, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. If a complaint passes 
initial screening, the case proceeds through several distinct procedural stages of 
litigation. Before the Court completes its mandatory screening, motions for 
summary judgment, default judgment, discovery, service, etc., are premature and 
should not be filed. Further, the filing of “emergency motions” is disfavored and is 
properly confined to only limited circumstances.
11 Plaintiff has not established 
good cause for expedited consideration, 12 and is cautioned Plaintiff against 
labeling motions as “emergency motions” absent good cause. For these reasons, 
Plaintiff’s motions at Dockets 11 and 12 are DENIED. 
 
11 Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1140 (D. Nev. 2015) (citing In 
re Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193-194 (C.D. Cal. 1989)). 
12 Id. See also Local Civil Rules 5.1(f)(2) and 7.1(e). 

 
Case No. 3:25-cv-00374-ACP, Kienitz v. Unknown Provider, et al. 
Order on Pending Motions 
Page 5 of 12 
IV. Plaintiff’s requests for prospective relief 
At Docket 16, Plaintiff’s letter requests the Court provide him with a personal 
caretaker, and at Docket 17, Plaintiff’s letter requests the Court expedite his 
transfer from prison to an assisted living facility. A preliminary injunction is an 
extraordinary remedy that is “never awarded as of right.”
13 Injunctions requiring 
affirmative action are “particularly disfavored.” 14 Such injunctions require the 
moving party to establish “not simply that [it] is likely to succeed,” but that “the law 
and facts clearly favor [its] position.”
15 Additionally, courts may only grant 
preliminary injunctive relief only if the relief is “of the same nature as that to be 
finally granted.”
16 There must be “a sufficient nexus between the claims raised in 
a motion for injunctive relief and the claims set forth in the underlying complaint 
itself.”17 Requests for prospective relief are further limited by the Prison Litigation 
Reform Act, which requires that any grant of prospective relief with respect to 
prison conditions be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary, and be the 
 
13 See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). The party seeking 
an injunction must establish: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of 
irreparable harm absent preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in favor of the 
injunction; and (4) the injunction is in the public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. 
14 Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Stanley v. Univ. of 
S. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir. 1994)). 
15 Garcia, 786 F.3d at 740. 
16 Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 
2015). 
17 Id. 

 
Case No. 3:25-cv-00374-ACP, Kienitz v. Unknown Provider, et al. 
Order on Pending Motions 
Page 6 of 12 
least intrusive means necessary for correction.18 
As Plaintiff's complaint has not yet been screened, the Court cannot find that 
Plaintiff has shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Further, Plaintiff's motion 
makes no showing that he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an 
injunction, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is in 
the public interest. 19 Because Plaintiff has not met the requirements for the 
injunctive relief he seeks, his requests at Dockets 16 and 17 are DENIED. 
V. Plaintiff’s letters at Dockets 18-19 
Plaintiff wrote a letter addressed to the “Sirs of the Court” in which he 
updates his contact information, again requests a court appointed attorney, and 
includes questions and other information about a potential personal injury claim 
involving an alleged hit and run.
20 Plaintiff also wrote a letter addressed to the 
undersigned requesting preliminary injunctive relief, and he attached a First 
Amended Complaint and Application to Proceed without Prepaying the Filing 
Fee.
21 
As explained above, the Court will not consider future requests made by 
Plaintiff in the form of a letter, and each request for relief must be filed in a separate 
 
18 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). See also Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir. 
2001). 
19 See Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). 
20 Docket 18. 
21 Docket 18-1 – 18-4. 

 
Case No. 3:25-cv-00374-ACP, Kienitz v. Unknown Provider, et al. 
Order on Pending Motions 
Page 7 of 12 
motion. Plaintiff’s requests for preliminary injunctive relief and for court appointed 
counsel are DENIED as duplicative of earlier requests. However, upon review, 
Plaintiff’s motion at Docket 18 is GRANTED insofar as Plaintiff’s First 
Amended Complaint at Docket 18 -2 is ACCEPTED as filed and Plaintiff’s 
application to proceed without prepaying the Court’s filing fee is GRANTED. 
Plaintiff’s request for an update on the status of his Application to Proceed without 
Prepaying the Filing Fee at Docket 19 is DENIED as moot. 
The Court will screen Plaintiff’s amended complaint at Docket 18-2 in due 
course. Until a Screening Order has been issued, Plaintiff is discouraged 
from filing additional motions or other documents. The Court cautions that 
unnecessary filings or attempts to serve other parties without direction from the 
Court, may result in the summary denial of motions, restrictions on further filings, 
or delays in the litigation. 
VI. Plaintiff’s motions for a court-appointed attorney 
Plaintiff has filed two motions asking the Court to find and appoint him an 
attorney.22 There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil action.23 A 
federal court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 
 
22 Dockets 3, 9. 
23 See Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431, 441 (2011) (“[T]he Sixth Amendment does not 
govern civil cases.”); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Generally, a 
person has no right to counsel in civil actions.”). 

 
Case No. 3:25-cv-00374-ACP, Kienitz v. Unknown Provider, et al. 
Order on Pending Motions 
Page 8 of 12 
counsel.”24 However, a district court’s decision to request counsel for a self -
represented litigant in a civil action is discretionary and granted only in exceptional 
circumstances,25 which Plaintiff has failed to establish in this case. Further, 
although 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) permits a court to request a volunteer attorney, 
this Court currently has no list of volunteer attorneys from which it may request 
counsel to represent Plaintiff. 
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for a court-appointed attorney at 
Docket 3 is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion for a court-appointed attorney at Docket 9 
is DENIED as duplicative. 
VII. Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice 
At Docket 8, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court take judicial notice 
of alleged numbers of prisoner deaths at DOC in 2022 and 2025. Although the 
Court may consider documents attached to the complaint or matters of judicial 
notice, the scope of review at the screening stage is generally limited to the 
contents of the complaint.
26 At the screening stage, a federal court determines only 
whether the plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to proceed to the next stage 
of litigation. A plaintiff need not file exhibits or evidence to prove his case at the 
 
24 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 
25 Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.1980). 
26 United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003). 

 
Case No. 3:25-cv-00374-ACP, Kienitz v. Unknown Provider, et al. 
Order on Pending Motions 
Page 9 of 12 
screening stage of the case, and motions requesting judicial notice are generally 
unnecessary and improper at this point. 
Further, the allegations in Docket 8 involve disputed factual matters that are 
not generally known or readily verifiable from sources whose accuracy cannot 
reasonably be questioned and thus are not appropriate for judicial notice. 27 
Moreover, these alleged deaths do not appear to be directly relevant to Plaintiff’s 
claims in this case.28 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice at Docket 8 
is DENIED. 
VIII. Notice of Change of Address 
The docket reflects that Plaintiff filed multiple notices updating his address 
before any transfer occurred, then filed a request asking the Court to expedite his 
transfer, and thereafter attempted to update his address in a letter containing 
multiple requests.29 In that letter, Plaintiff claims he was to be transferred to ARC 
the following morning, but his most recent filing was sent in an envelope with his 
return address at the Anchorage Correctional Complex . According to Alaska’s 
 
27 Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). See also Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (defining 
judicial notice as a “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.”). 
28 See Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. Marilyn Monroe LLC, 692 F.3d 983, 991 n. 8 
(9th Cir. 2012) (denying judicial notice of appeals in other cases where issues on appeal 
were not relevant to present case). 
29 See Docket 5 (Notice of Change of Address); Docket 17 (motion to expedite transfer); 
Docket 18 (letter updating address). 

 
Case No. 3:25-cv-00374-ACP, Kienitz v. Unknown Provider, et al. 
Order on Pending Motions 
Page 10 of 12 
automated inmate information and notification service, Plaintiff remains housed at 
ACC.30 
The Clerk is directed to update Plaintiff’s address and send a copy of this 
order to Plaintiff at ACC. However, future failure to keep a current address on file 
with the Court will result in dismissal of this case without further notice to Plaintiff. 
The Notice must not include requests for any other relief or other information, and 
Plaintiff should not file notices of address change prematurely or based on 
anticipated transfers or moves that have not yet occurred. Such filings create 
unnecessary confusion regarding Plaintiff’s correct address and complicate the 
administration of the case. 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 
1. Plaintiff’s motion at Docket 18 is GRANTED insofar as Plaintiff’s First 
Amended Complaint at Docket 18-2 is ACCEPTED as filed and Plaintiff’s 
application to proceed without prepaying the Court’s filing fee is GRANTED. 
2. All remaining motions and requests are DENIED for the reasons 
explained in this order. 
3. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint at Docket 
18-2 in due course. 
 
30 Information regarding inmates in the custody of the Alaska Department of 
Corrections, such as an inmate's current location and tentative release date, is available 
through the Victim Information and Notification Everyday (“VINE”) service at 
www.vinelink.com. 

 
Case No. 3:25-cv-00374-ACP, Kienitz v. Unknown Provider, et al. 
Order on Pending Motions 
Page 11 of 12 
4. Until a Screening Order has been issued, Plaintiff is discouraged from 
filing additional motions or other documents. If a motion has been filed, Plaintiff is 
required to wait for a ruling. Plaintiff must not file a motion if he has another 
motion on the same subject matter already pending before the Court, and he 
must refrain from unnecessarily increasing the number of filings by 
requesting a ruling on an already-pending motion. 
5. Federal law only allows prisoners to waive the prepayment of the fees 
associated with civil lawsuits. 31 Prisoners must pay the $350 filing fee 
incrementally until paid in full, regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit. 32 Should 
Plaintiff proceed with this lawsuit, the Court will issue a separate order to collect 
the filing fee in installments from Plaintiff’s prisoner trust account until the $350 is 
paid in full. 
6. At all times, Plaintiff shall promptly update his contact information in 
this case by filing by filing a Notice of Change of Address. Plaintiff may use the 
Court’s Form PS23,
33 or he may file a document titled “Notice of Change of 
Address” that clearly states his new mailing address and its effective date. The 
Notice must not include requests for any other relief. 
 
31 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)-(b). 
32 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2). 
33 Although the Court provides forms that are required for certain filings, the Court does 
not require a specific form to update an address. However, a Notice of Change of 
Address form, PS23, may be obtained from the Clerk of Court, if needed. 

 
Case No. 3:25-cv-00374-ACP, Kienitz v. Unknown Provider, et al. 
Order on Pending Motions 
Page 12 of 12 
7. The Clerk is directed to update Plaintiff’s address to the Anchorage 
Correctional Complex and send Plaintiff a copy of this order at that address. 34 
DATED this 21st day of May, 2026, at Anchorage, Alaska. 
/s/ Aaron Christian Peterson 
AARON CHRISTIAN PETERSON 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
34 See Docket 19 at 3. 

Passage view · GavelSight