Brooks (ID 61077) v. Kobach
5:25-cv-03054
D. Kan.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, David P. Brooks-El, is an inmate at Lansing Correctional Facility in Kansas, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, bringing a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- He names as defendants Kansas officials: Attorney General Kris Kobach, Secretary of Corrections Jeff Zmuda, District Judge J. Dexter Burdette, and District Attorney Nicholas A. Tomasic, relating to his 1994 state felony murder conviction.
- Brooks-El alleges that he was prosecuted as an adult at age 15, unlike an older co-defendant, and claims an Eighth Amendment violation for receiving an effective life sentence without consideration of his youth.
- Plaintiff also raises claims about his mental health deterioration due to years of adult incarceration, with unclear references to a rule change and the Supremacy Clause.
- The Court identified several deficiencies: the claims may need to be brought as habeas, possibly barred by Heck v. Humphrey, and most defendants have immunity or lack the required personal involvement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Challenge to sentence under § 1983 | Life sentence at 15 violated Eighth Amendment | § 1983 not proper for invalidating | Must be raised via habeas, not § 1983; bars civil claim. |
| Sovereign & personal immunity | Seeks damages from state officials | State & officials immune in official | Defendants have Eleventh Amendment and common law immunity |
| Personal participation of officials | Names AG and Sec. Corrections for prison conditions | No direct involvement with conduct | Lacks allegations of direct participation |
| Heck bar to monetary relief | Seeks damages for unconstitutional conviction/sentence | Conviction has not been invalidated | Damages barred until conviction is reversed or vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (standard for § 1983 claim: must allege deprivation of federal right by person acting under color of state law)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (only habeas, not § 1983, can challenge validity of confinement)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (bar on § 1983 damages claims that would imply invalidity of conviction or sentence)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (judges immune from § 1983 liability for judicial acts)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial immunity for actions in initiating and presenting state’s case)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state officials sued in official capacity not "persons" under § 1983)