Gareth Northway v. Fourth District Superior Court Fairbanks

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA GARETH NORTHWAY,

Plaintiff, v. Case No. 4:26-cv-00013-SLG

FOURTH DISTRICT SUPERIOR COURT FAIRBANKS, Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL & NOTICE OF STRIKE On February 13, 2026, self-represented prisoner Gareth Northway (“Plaintiff”) filed a civil complaint against the Fourth District Superior Court Fairbanks.1 The Court has now screened the Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Upon review, Plaintiff’s claims are the same as or substantially similar to claims he previously brought in federal court.

Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court takes judicial notice of Northway v. State of Alaska, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00330-SLG and Northway v. State of Alaska, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00331-SLG.2 After the Docket 1.

2 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 (12th ed. 2024); See also United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (“We may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Court issued a combined Notice of Intent to Dismiss Each Case as a Strike, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in each case.3 Although the Court informed Plaintiff that his claims against the State of Alaska and the Fourth District Superior Court cannot proceed in federal court, Plaintiff again collaterally attacks his criminal proceedings and names Fourth District Superior Court in this new civil case. For the reasons previously explained in the Court’s Notice of Intent to Dismiss, Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed with prejudice. This dismissal counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which may limit Plaintiff’s ability to bring future civil rights cases in federal court.

The Three Strikes Rule The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that a self-represented prisoner receive a “strike” when a case he has filed in federal court is dismissed “as frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[.]”4 The “three strikes” provision is “designed to filter out the bad claims and facilitate consideration of the good.”5 Once a prisoner-plaintiff has accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited from bringing any other civil rights cases in federal court without prepaying the full filing fee unless he makes “plausible allegations” that, at the time he filed the complaint, he is under imminent danger of serious physical

3 See Case 330, Docket 7.

4 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

5 Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 204 (2007). injury.6 Imminent danger requires an allegation that a harm is “ready to take place” or “hanging threateningly over one's head.”7 It cannot be triggered solely by complaints of past injury or generalized fears of possible future harm.8 In addition to being “imminent,” the alleged danger must also be “both fairly traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in [the] complaint and redressable by the court.”9 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

2. This dismissal counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which may limit Plaintiff’s ability to bring future civil rights cases in federal court.

3. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

4. With this order, the Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Court’s order at Docket 7 in Case No. 3:25-cv-00330-SLG.

5. The Clerk of Court shall issue a final judgment and close this case.

DATED this 12th day of May, 2026, at Anchorage, Alaska. /s/ Sharon L. Gleason SHARON L. GLEASON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022) (adopting nexus test).

7 Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1056 (cleaned up).

8 Id. at 1053 (“The exception's use of the present tense, combined with its concern only with the initial act of ‘bring[ing]’ the lawsuit, indicates to us that the exception applies if the danger existed at the time the prisoner filed the complaint.”).

9 Ray v. Lara, 31 F.4th 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2022) (adopting nexus test).