Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Steven C. Levi, Petitioner v. Anchorage School District, et al.

Appendix I

I'S

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FILED

MAR 28 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

No. 23-35170

STEVEN C. LEVI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00162-JMK

v.

MEMORANDUM*

ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Joshua M. Kindred, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 26,2024**

Before:

TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Steven C. Levi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108,1112 (9th Cir.

2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

j4

Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal under res judicata). We

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Levi’s claims concerning his

unemployment benefits as barred by res judicata because Levi previously raised

nearly identical claims against the same defendants or their privies in a prior

federal action that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Mpoyo, 430 F.3d

at 987-88 (elements of federal res judicata).

'

To the extent any of Levi’s claims are not barred by res judicata, dismissal

of those claims was proper because Levi failed to allege facts sufficient to state any

plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid

dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.

I*3

2

23-35170

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

STEVEN C. LEVI,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:22-cv-00162-JMK

v.

ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT et al,

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Self-represented litigant Steven C. Levi (“Plaintiff’) filed a Complaint and an

Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees and Costs on July 15, 2022. 1

Plaintiff brings suit against the Anchorage School District and its employees; the

Municipality of Anchorage and two former Municipal Attorneys; the State of Alaska,

several state departments, and over 100 state employees; the State of Alaska

Court system; the Honorable Ralph R. Beistline; “John Doe, 1-100”; and “Jane

Doe, 1-100.”2

Plaintiff alleges his rights were violated while filing his

unemployment claim and subsequent state court case.3

Plaintiff explains the

procedural history of his dispute with the Department of Labor and the subsequent

Dockets 1-2.

2 Docket 1 at 1-2.

3 Docket 1 at 9-12.

Case 3:22-cv-00162-JMK Documents Filed 02/15/23 Page 1 of 12

decisions from the Superior Court of Alaska and the Alaska Supreme Court.4

Plaintiff then breaks down Alaska Supreme Court Opinion S-16876 into specific

sections with which he disagrees.5 Plaintiff further alleges he has been subjected

to unemployment and “the impugning of his character” because he reported

alleged mortgage fraud, “gift mortgages,” and income tax evasion to federal

agencies.6 For relief, Plaintiff requests:

1. Damages for lost wages and benefits since 1995 from the State of

Alaska, Municipality of Anchorage and Anchorage School District at the

appropriate rate based on education and experience to be determined.

2. Punitive Damages in the amount of $10 million.

3. A court clarification of gift mortgages definitively stating “gift mortgages”

and their relation to mortgage fraud.

4. A court order guaranteeing plaintiff Federal Whistleblower and Qui Tam

percentages.

5. A court order ending the discrimination of plaintiff and business

associates by any and all people, department, divisions and offices of the

State of Alaska, Municipality of Anchorage and the Anchorage School

District.

6. Protection from further retaliation.

7. A court order for the State of Alaska to bring its manuals and instructions

in all departments, divisions and office in line with Alaska Statute and the

ADA Compliance Program.

8. A referral to the FBI and the IRS and the Federal Housing Finance,

Banking and Securities Administration to undertake an immediate,

comprehensive investigation and prosecution of “gift mortgages” in all

states.

4 Docket 1 at 1-2.

5 Docket 1 at 3-12.

6 Docket 1 at 13.

Case No. 3:22-cv-00162-JMK, Levi v. Anchorage School Board etal.

Order of Dismissal

Page 2 of 12

Case 3:22-cv-00162-JMK Documents Filed 02/15/23 Page2 of 12

9. Additional relief as the court finds appropriate.7

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Federal law requires a court to conduct an initial screening of a civil

complaint filed by a self-represented litigant seeking to proceed in a lawsuit in

federal court without paying the filing fee.8 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

(iii)

seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

from such relief.9

To determine whether a complaint states a valid claim for 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.”10 Before a court may dismiss any portion of a complaint for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court must provide the plaintiff with

a statement of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend or

7 Docket 1 at 14-15.

See, e.g., Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000).

9 28U.S.C. § 1915A.

10 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

570 (2007)). In making this determination, a court may consider “materials that are submitted

with and attached to the Complaint.” United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 999 (9th

Cir. 2011) (citing Lee v. L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)).

Case No. 3:22-cv-00162-JMK, Levi v. Anchorage School Board et al.

Order of Dismissal

Page 3 of 12

Case 3:22-cv-00162-JMK Document 3 Filed 02/15/23 Page 3 of 12

otherwise address the problems, unless to do so would be futile.11 Futility exists

when “the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could

not possibly cure the deficiency!.] »12

A complaint may be found frivolous if it “merely repeats pending or

previously litigated claims. ”13 A federal court may, sua sponte, dismiss a case on

preclusion grounds where the records of that court show that a previous action

covering the same subject matter and parties had been dismissed.14

DISCUSSION

I.

Background

The Court takes judicial notice15 of two previous federal actions brought by

Mr. Levi. In Levi v. State of Alaska, Case No. 3:18-cv-00282-RRB, Plaintiff brought

suit against the State of Alaska alleging violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983.

Plaintiff claimed Alaska’s Department of Labor improperly ordered he

refund the Department for an overpayment of unemployment benefits, and he

11 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)).

12 See Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393,1401 (9th Cir. 1986).

13 Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation and quotation omitted).

14 Headwaters Inc. v. U S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047,1052 (9th Cir. 2005).

15 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). A court can take judicial notice of its own files and

records. Fed. R. Evid. 201.

Case No. 3:22-cv-00162-JMK, Levi v. Anchorage School Board et al.

Order of Dismissal

Page 4 of 12

Case 3:22-cv-00162-JMK Document 3 Filed 02/15/23 Page 4 of 12

challenged Alaska Supreme Court Opinion S-16876.16 The Court dismissed the

action with prejudice for failure to state a claim, lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

and futility of amendment.17 Plaintiff appealed the Court’s decision to the Ninth

Circuit.18 The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Court’s decision, finding the action was

properly dismissed and amendment would have been futile.19

In Levi v. Federal Housing Finance Agency et al, Plaintiff sought to compel

four federal agencies to investigative and take enforcement action to address what

he contends are illegal “gift mortgages” around the country.20 The Court granted

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(1 ).21 Plaintiff appealed.22 The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Court’s order

dismissing the action.23 The Ninth Circuit denied Plaintiffs request for rehearing.24

Plaintiff now seeks to combine the same claims raised in the above two

cases in the instant case. While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs plight, the

16 Levi v. State of Alaska, Case No. 3:18-cv-00282-RRB, Docket 1.

17 Id. at Docket 2.

18 Id. at Docket 4.

19 Id. at Docket 7.

20 Levi v. Federal Housing Finance Agency et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00183-TMB.

21 Id. at Docket 38. The Court also noted Plaintiff lacked standing and the claim was barred by

sovereign immunity. Id. at 6-7.

22 Id. at Docket 39.

23 Id. at Docket 47.

24 Id. at Docket 49.

Case No. 3:22-cv-00162-JMK, Levi v. Anchorage School Board et al.

Order of Dismissal

Page 5 of 12

Case 3:22-cv-00162-JMK Document 3 Filed 02/15/23 Page 5 of 12

Court previously dismissed these claims. Aside from the Courts previous reasons

for dismissing these claims, there is additional basis for dismissal of the present

action as it “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.”25

II.

These Duplicative Claims are Barred by Res Judicata

Under the doctrine of res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, a party

cannot relitigate a claim that was previously decided. The Ninth Circuit has

explained res judicata applies when “the earlier suit... (1) involved the same claim

or cause of action as the later suit, (2) reached a final judgment on the merits, and

(3) involved identical parties or privies. ”26

A.

This Case Involves the Same Claims or Causes of Action

Previously Dismissed in Final Judgments

Whether the suits involve the same claim or cause of action requires a

federal court to look at four criteria, which are not applied mechanistically:

(1) whether the suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts;

(2) whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would be destroyed

or impaired by prosecution of the instant case; (3) whether the cases involve

infringement of the same right; and (4) whether substantially the same evidence is

25 Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n. 2 (9th Cir.1995) (internal citations and quotation

marks omitted).

26 Sidhu v. Flecto Co., 279 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2002). See also PRIVY, Black’s Law

Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (A person having a legal interest of privity in any action, matter, or

property; a person who is in privity with another).

Case No. 3:22-cv-00162-JMK, Levi v. Anchorage School Board et al.

Order of Dismissal

Page 6 of 12

Case 3:22-cv-00162-JMK Document 3 Filed 02/15/23 Page 6 of 12

presented in the cases.27

Here, the Court’s analysis is complicated by the fact that Plaintiff seeks to

combine claims brought in two previous cases into the instant one. However, after

careful consideration of all three cases, the Court concludes the first two criteria of

claim preclusion are met because Plaintiffs previous two cases, which reached

final judgments on the merits, involved the same claims or causes of action as the

current case.28

Plaintiffs first claim in the current case, “[fjailure to provide adequate

instruction and assistance when filing unemployment claims and denial of plaintiff

with disabilities due process” is nearly identical to and arises out of the same

nucleus of facts as the allegations in Levi v. State of Alaska.29 Plaintiffs narrative

and requests for relief are nearly identical to his earlier filings, all centering around

events that allegedly occurred from 2011-2017. Although Plaintiff asserts he is

subject to continuous consequences, he provides no facts related to events

occurring after he filed the earlier complaints.

Plaintiffs second claim in the current case conflates facts alleged in both

Levi v. State of Alaska and Levi v. Federal Housing Finance Agency et a!30 into

27 Chao v. A-One Med. Sen/s., Inc., 346 F.3d 908, 921 (9th Cir. 2003).

28 Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005).

29 Case No. 3:18-cv-00282-RRB.

30 Case No. 3:17-cv-00183-TMB.

Case No. 3:22-cv-00162-JMK, Levi v. Anchorage School Board et al.

Order of Dismissal

Page 7 of 12

Case3:22-cv-00162-JMK Documents Filed 02/15/23 Page7 of 12

one claim. Plaintiffs alleges certain individuals, in Alaska and nationwide, are

receiving “gift mortgages,” which are marked as paid off without the mortgagee

receiving any actual payment from the mortgage loan recipient.31 Plaintiff also

implies that he was retaliated against for discovering the “gift mortgages,” and that

both his former employer and numerous state agencies were paid off via “gift

mortgages” for his termination and subsequent denial of certain unemployment

benefits.32 Plaintiff now asserts the State of Alaska, Anchorage School District,

Attorney General, and the Court failed to appropriately respond to his complaints.33

Aside from the addition of the Court’s alleged failures, the Court has

previously addressed all the allegations contained in Plaintiffs current filings and

dismissed without leave to amend. Dismissal of an action with prejudice, or without

leave to amend, is considered a final judgment on the merits.34 Accordingly, those

claims are barred. Additionally, Plaintiffs allegations against this Court and its

judges also fail. Not only are the Court and judges immune35 from suit, but this

new filing is not the proper way to appeal a court’s decision. Further, as indicated

31 Id. at Docket 38.

32 Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation, ongoing unemployment, and financial challenges were raised in

Levi v. State of Alaska, Case No. 3:18-cv-00282-RRB.

33 Docket 1 at 13-14.

34 See, e.g., Federated Dep’t Stores v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n. 3 (1981); Headwaters Inc. v.

U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047,1052 (9th Cir. 2005).

35 Because no cognizable claims are pleaded, the Court will not consider address immunity at this

time. See generally, Const. Amend. XI.

Case No. 3:22-cv-00162-JMK, Levi v. Anchorage School Board etal.

Order of Dismissal

Page 8 of 12

Case 3:22-cv-00162-JMK Document 3 Filed 02/15/23 Page 8 of 12

above, Plaintiff has already appealed both the Court’s previous dismissals, and

both were affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.36 Therefore, the Court finds that these

claims are duplicative, a waste of judicial resources, and an improper attempt to

circumvent the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s previous orders.37

B.

This Case Involves the Same Parties or Privies as the Previously

Dismissed Cases

Courts determine whether the parties or privies to the action are the same

by looking to whether they represent the same interests.38 Plaintiffs previous

federal cases named the State of Alaska,39 the Federal Housing Finance Agency,

the Consumer Finance Protection

Bureau, the Security and

Exchange

Commission, and the Internal Revenue Service.40 Although the Court advised no

defendants could be substituted under the alleged facts, Plaintiff now adds the

36 See Case No. 3:17-cv-183-TMB, Docket 47 (order affirming district court’s dismissal) and

Docket 49 (petition for rehearing denied); Case No. 3:18-cv-00282-RRB, Docket 7 (order affirming

dismissal).

37 Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S. Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) (res judicata relieves

parties of cost of multiple lawsuits, conserves judicial resources, and encourages reliance on

adjudication); Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 131, 99 S. Ct. 2205, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979) (res

judicata ’’encourages reliance on judicial decisions, bars vexatious litigation, and frees the courts

to resolve other disputes”).

38 See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064,1081 (9th

Cir. 2003) (“Even when the parties are not identical, privity may exist if there is substantial identity

between parties, that is, when there is sufficient commonality of interest.”) (internal cites and

quotation marks omitted).

39 Levi v. State of Alaska, Case No. 3:18-cv-00282-RRB.

40 Levi v. Federal Housing Finance Agency et al, Case No. 3:17-cv-00183-TMB.

Case No. 3:22-cv-00162-JMK, Levi v. Anchorage School Board etal.

Order of Dismissal

Page 9 of 12

Case 3:22-cv-00162-JMK Documents Filed 02/15/23 Page 9 of 12

Anchorage School District and a variety of federal, state, and county employees

as Defendants.

An

employer-employee

relationship

generally

satisfies

the

privity

requirement for matters within the scope of employment” because the employer’s

and employee’s interests

are

sufficiently

aligned.41

Likewise,

different

representatives of the same governmental body share interests sufficient to render

them in privity with one another, in the context of relitigating the same issue.42 The

Court finds the additional Defendants do not significantly differ from the earlier

cases, and are therefore, in privity with the previously named defendants.

C.

Conclusion and Caution to Plaintiff

For the foregoing reasons, this case is barred by the doctrine of res judicata

and is therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff has had a full and fair opportunity to raise and litigate the claims he

asserts in this case.43 The Court notes Plaintiff also previously brought his claims

involving his unemployment case before the Department of Labor, the Alaska

Superior Court, and the Alaska Supreme Court.

41 Draws and v. F.F. Props., L.L.P., 866 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1127 (N.D. Cal. 2011).

42 See Ma Chuck Moon v. Dulles, 237 F.2d 241,243 (9th Cir. 1956) (finding that an action against

the U.S. Secretary of State barred a later action against the U.S. Attorney General because the

difference between the defendants was not sufficiently material.).

43 Ross v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 634 F.2d 453, 458 (9th Cir. 1980) (“The question [before

applying res judicata to bar the second suit] is... whether [plaintiff] had a fair opportunity to litigate

that claim before a competent court prior to bringing it to the court below.”).

Case No. 3:22-cv-00162-JMK, Levi v. Anchorage School Board etal.

Order of Dismissal

Page 10 of 12

Case 3:22-cv-00162-JMK Document 3 Filed 02/15/23 Page 10 of 12

A court may act with leniency towards a self-represented litigant for

procedural violations, but attorneys and self-represented litigants are expected to

follow the same rules and procedures.44 Civil actions in federal courts abide by

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.45 Additionally, the U.S. District Court of

Alaska has Local Civil Rules.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 to achieve orderly

dispositions.47

This includes fashioning sanctions for conduct that brings

duplicative claims that have already been litigated, abuses the judicial process or

is in bad faith.48 The Court cautions Plaintiff to carefully consider any future filings

with the Court.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

44 Motoyama v. Hawaii, Dept. ofTransp., 864 F. Supp. 2d 965,976 (2012); see also King v. Atiyeh,

814 F.2d 565,567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d

896 (9th Cir. 2012) (establishing self-represented litigants are bound by the same procedural rules

as represented parties).

45 The most current Rules of Civil Procedure will be available here: https://www.uscourts.gov/

rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure.

46

The most current local rules will be here: https://www.akd.uscourts.gov/court-info/local-rulesand-orders/local-rules.

47 America Unites for Kids v. Rousseau, 985 F.3d 1075,1088 (9th Cir. 2021).

48 Id. See also Abdul-Akbarv. Dep’t of Corn,910 F. Supp. 986 (D. Del., 1995), aff’d, 111 F.3d 125

(3d Cir.) (table decision), cert, denied, 522 U.S. 852 (1997).

Case No. 3:22-cv-00162-JMK, Levi v. Anchorage School Board et al.

Order of Dismissal

Page 11 of 12

Case 3:22-cv-00162-JMK Document 3 Filed 02/15/23 Page 11 of 12

2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

3. The Clerk of Court shall issue a final judgement.

DATED this 15th day of February, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/Joshua M. Kindred

JOSHUA M. KINDRED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:22-cv-00162-JMK, Levi v. Anchorage School Board et al.

Order of Dismissal

Page 12 of 12

Case 3:22-cv-00162-JMK Document 3 Filed 02/15/23 Page 12 of 12

II npnaddy

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN C. LEVI,

)

Plaintiff

) No.23-35170

)

v.

Anchorage School District

) D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00162-JMK

)

)

)

)

Timothy Blake, Principal,

Joy Chastagner, Labor Relations Generalist )

Deena Bishop, Former Superintendent

)

of Anchorage School District

)

Municipality of Anchorage

)

)

)

)

)

Frederick H. Boness, Former Municipal

Attorney

James Reeves, Former Municipal Attorney )

State of Alaska

Department of Labor and Workforce

Development

Susan Nichols, Investigator

Rhonda Buness, Appeals Officer

Patsy Westcott, Division Director

Greg Cashen, SOA Assistant Director,

Employment Security

Division of Personnel

Kate Sheehan, Division of Personnel

Nancy Sutch, Division of Personnel

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Jahna Lindemuth, former Attorney

General for the State of Alaska

Heidi Drygas, former Commissioner

of the Department of Labor

Dr. Tamika Ledbetter, Commissioner

of the Department of Labor

Linda Mahoney, Commissioner of Revenue )

rHCD

CUD

rtJ

Q-

Steven Levi, pro se

Box 241467

Anchorage, AK 99524

scl@parsnackle.com

907-440-7444

r

2

Frank Pfiffner, SOA Alaska Court System )

David Newman, ADA Director

)

)

)

Ralph R. Beistline, Federal District Judge

)

State of Alaska, 1-100

John Doe, 1-100

Jane Doe. 1-100

)

)

)

)

)

1

APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF AND EXCERPTS OF RECORD

COMES NOW APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF AND EXCERPTS OF RECORD

appealing the Dismissal of 3:22-cv-00162-JMK by the Federal Court in Alaska.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On February 15, Joshua M, Kindred of the United States District Court of Alaska

Dismissed Case No. 3:22-cv-00162-JMK with Prejudice. The Dismissal contained nine (9)

errors.

Error One:

On Page 4 of 12, the Court conflated Levi v. State ofAlaska, Case 3:18-cv-00282-RRB

with this case. First, this case, 3:22-cw-00162-JMK has no bearing on the case which was

previously appealed to the 9th Circuit. That case dealt with the violation of Plaintiff s civil rights

in the specific matter of unemployment compensation. Unemployment Compensation is not a

matter in this case, 3:22-cw-00162-JMK. This case is specifically regarding bribery of public

officials receiving federal mortgage dollars to deny Plaintiff employment with the State of

Alaska, Municipality of Anchorage, and the Anchorage School District. These actions are

Steven Levi, pro se

Box 241467

Anchorage, AK 99524

scl@parsnackle.com

907-440-7444

li

Csl<D

(20

03

Q_

3

violations of Federal Bribery Statute 18 U.S.C. § 201, Bank Fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and a

variety of IRS regulations.

Error Two:

On Page 5 of 12, the Court has conflated Levi v. Federal Housing Finance Agency et al.

with this case. That case specifically requested a federal determination of the legality of so-called

gift mortgages. Plaintiff has stated that mortgages, federal dollars, gifted by a bank to

individuals are mortgage fraud and income tax evasion by both the individual involved and the

bank providing the so-called gift mortgage. No federal agency, department, Court, or regulatory

entity has ruled on the legality of so-called gift mortgages. This case, 3:22-cv-00162-JMK, is

specifically regarding bribery of public officials with the use of federal mortgage dollars to deny

Plaintiff employment with the State of Alaska, Municipality of Anchorage, and the Anchorage

School District. These actions are violations of Federal Bribery Statute 18 U.S.C. § 201, Bank

Fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and a variety of IRS regulations.

Error Three:

The Court is in error in its claim of res judicata. No court, federal or state, has ruled on

the matter of bribery of public officials using of federal mortgage dollars to deny Plaintiff

employment with the State of Alaska, Municipality of Anchorage, and the Anchorage School

District. These actions are violations of Federal Bribery Statute 18 U.S.C. § 201, Bank Fraud, 18

U.S.C. § 1341, and a variety of IRS regulations.

Error Four:

On Page 7 of 12, the Court states,

Although Plaintiff asserts he is subject to continuous consequences, he provides

no facts related to events occurring after he filed the earlier complaints.

on

00

CL

Steven Levi, pro se

Box 241467

Anchorage, AK 99524

scl@parsnackle.com

907-440-7444

4

This is an error. In the initial filing in July of 2022, Plaintiff provided specific

information about the ongoing discrimination as well as the specific individuals involved.

Significant to the initial filing was a request to the Federal District Court in Anchorage to send

Discovery and Interrogatory requests to the specific individuals who had allegedly received

federal mortgage relief in the form of a so-called gift mortgage in exchange for the harassment of

Plaintiff. The Discovery and Interrogatories were never sent because permission by the Court to

send the documents was never granted. This is a violation of the rights of the Plaintiff as well as

a violation of the due process of law.

Specifically of critical importance to Error Four, “facts related to events occurring after

[Plaintiff] filed the earlier complaints” is misleading. The two cases which the Court is

conflating with this case, 3:22-cw-00162-JMK, did not request Discovery and Interrogatories

from the specific individuals in this case.

Error Five:

On page 8 of 12, the Court states it "has previously addressed all the allegations

contained in Plaintiffs current filing." This is an error. Again, the Court is conflating other

federal cases with this one. Specifically regarding this case, 3:22-cw-00162-JMK, the Court has

not allowed die sending of Discovery and Interrogatories so there is no way the Court can assert

“all allegations” are in error.

Error Six:

Further, also on page 8 of 12, the Court states, "Plaintiffs allegation against this Court

and its judges also fails." This is the first time the word "judges" is included in the filing, and is

in error. Two judges are included in the request for Discovery and Interrogatory. Judges lose

<D

individual and official immunity in the investigation of crimes; Cannon v. Commission on

Steven Levi, pro se.

Box 241467

Anchorage, AK 99524

scl@parsnackle.com

907-440-7444

Q®

00

05

CL

5

Judicial Qualifications (1975) 14 Cal. 3d. 678, 694 andButz v. Economou 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978);

United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. at 220, 1S. Ct. at 261 (1882). This case is specifically regarding

bribery of public officials, including two judges, with the use of federal mortgage dollars to deny

Plaintiff employment with the State of Alaska, Municipality of Anchorage, and the Anchorage

School District. Therefore, judges lose their individual and official immunity and must respond

to Discovery and Interrogatories.

Error Seven:

On page 10 of 12, the Court states,

The Court finds the additional Defendants do not significantly differ from the earlier

cases, and are therefore, in privity with the previously named defendants.

This is in error. First, the “additional Defendants” in 3:22-cw-00162-JMK have never

received Discovery and Interrogators in any of Plaintiffs federal cases. Further, the Defendants

in 3:22-cw-00162-JMK are significantly different from the earlier cases because they were not

included in the earlier cases which the Court has conflated with this one.

Further, the specific definition of privity is “a relation between two parties that is

recognized by law, such as that of blood, lease, or service.” Plaintiff agrees with the Court there

is a relation between the parties. It is the receipt of so-called gift mortgages in the ongoing

discrimination of the Plaintiff in employment with the State of Alaska, Municipality of

Anchorage - as well as the ongoing gifting of gift mortgages from Wells Fargo. This privity will

be revealed when the Court allows the dissemination of the Discovery and Interrogatories to the

specifically named individuals in 3:22-cw-00162-JMK.

LT>

aj

CUD

nj

CL

Steven Levi, pro se

Box 241467

Anchorage, AK 99524

scl@parsnackle.com

907-440-7444

9\

6

CONCLUSION

The decision to dismiss 3:22-cw-00162-JMK was in error. The continuing conflation of

the federal cases which have no bearing on this one have prejudiced the outcome of this case.

Further, for the Court to fail to allow the sending of Discovery and Interrogatories to the specific

individuals named in the initial filing is a violation of due process. Plaintiff has shown a

discriminatory pattern of behavior which has affected Plaintiff’s employment with the State of

Alaska, Municipality of Anchorage, and the Anchorage School District. These actions are

violations of Federal Bribery Statute 18 U.S.C. § 201, Bank Fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and a

variety of IRS regulations.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff prays the Court will negate the Order of Dismissal and allow the sending of

Discovery and Interrogatories to the specifically named individuals in this case.

Respectfully submitted:

w

T7

Steven C. Levi March 15,2023

CD<u

00

03

Q.

Steven Levi, pro se

Box 241467

Anchorage, AK 99524

scl@parsnackle.com

907-440-7444