Sutherland v. Bales, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Alaska screens Ronald Sutherland’s self-represented complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court dismisses the complaint for failure to state a claim, dismissing most claims and defendants without leave to amend while allowing a possible amended Fourteenth Amendment inadequate-medical-care claim against Dr. James Bales if Sutherland can establish equitable tolling or another basis overcoming the statute of limitations. The court grants Sutherland’s application to waive the filing fee and gives him 60 days to file an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal.

Holdings

1. A district court must dismiss a screened civil complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant; applying that standard, the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
2. The Eighth Amendment did not apply because Sutherland was not a convicted prisoner in state custody when the alleged violations occurred; the Eighth Amendment claims were dismissed with prejudice.
3. Liberally construed, the complaint stated a plausible Fourteenth Amendment inadequate-medical-care claim against Dr. Bales, assuming he could be shown to have acted under color of state law.
4. The claims against Dr. Light and unnamed hospital personnel failed because the complaint did not allege their personal involvement in a constitutional violation and their alleged misrepresentations, without more, did not establish a Fourteenth Amendment violation; those defendants were dismissed without leave to amend in this action.
5. Alaska Regional Hospital could not be held liable under § 1983 based solely on alleged constitutional violations by its employees, and the complaint failed to identify a hospital policy, practice, or custom that was the moving force behind a constitutional violation; the hospital was dismissed without leave to amend in this action.
6. The claims concerning the arrest, search and seizure, alleged fabrication of evidence, warrants, and retaliation were not sufficiently related to the medical-care claim and could not proceed against those defendants in the same action.
7. The § 1983 medical-care claim against Dr. Bales appeared barred by Alaska's two-year statute of limitations because the alleged injury accrued no later than shortly after the July 11, 2023 surgery and the complaint was filed on September 9, 2025; the court nevertheless granted a limited opportunity to amend to plead equitable tolling or another basis avoiding the limitations bar.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated claims cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
2. Whether Sutherland's inadequate-medical-care allegations stated a Fourteenth Amendment claim against Dr. Bales.
3. Whether the complaint stated § 1983 claims against Dr. Light, unnamed hospital personnel, and Alaska Regional Hospital.
4. Whether the arrest, search-and-seizure, fabricated-evidence, warrant, and retaliation claims were improperly joined with the medical-care claim.
5. Whether the inadequate-medical-care claim against Dr. Bales appeared barred by Alaska's two-year statute of limitations and whether leave to amend should be granted to address tolling.

Disposition

dismissed