Justice (ID 74505) v. Kansas, State of
5:16-cv-03215
D. Kan.Sep 22, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jason Alan Justice, a pretrial detainee in Sedgwick County Detention Facility, filed a pro se § 1983 complaint (proceeding IFP) challenging the validity of his pretrial confinement and alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement; he sought release, statutory construction, damages, investigation, and injunctive relief.
- The complaint was largely unintelligible but raised (1) claims that Kansas criminal statutes and his state prosecution are unconstitutional and (2) multiple conditions-of-confinement and medical/assault complaints about the jail.
- The court treated the challenge to pretrial confinement as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and screened the complaint under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and § 2241 standards.
- The court found plaintiff had not exhausted state-court remedies (no K.S.A. § 60-1501 petition or presentation to the state supreme court) and that Younger abstention barred federal intervention in the ongoing state criminal proceedings.
- The court screened the § 1983 conditions-of-confinement claims and dismissed them for failures to state a claim: the named defendant (State of Kansas) is not a proper § 1983 defendant; assault allegations were conclusory; medical and facility complaints did not allege deliberate indifference or conditions meeting Eighth Amendment standards.
- Plaintiff’s motions to amend, for preliminary injunction, appointment of counsel, and hearing were denied (proposed amendments futile; no colorable claim; no showing of irreparable harm or likelihood of success). The court gave Justice 30 days to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed and allowed filing a court-form amended complaint curing stated deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pretrial challenge to confinement may proceed in federal court | Justice contends his confinement and the statutes charging him are unconstitutional and seeks release | State argues federal relief is improper because state remedies not exhausted and federal court should not interfere with ongoing prosecution | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies; Younger abstention bars relief |
| Whether plaintiff exhausted state remedies | Justice says he used detention "kite" system; has not taken claims to state courts | State asserts plaintiff must pursue state habeas or appeal to Kansas courts first | Court found kites insufficient; plaintiff has not exhausted available state judicial remedies |
| Whether State of Kansas is a proper § 1983 defendant | Justice named State of Kansas as defendant seeking damages and injunctive relief | State (by law) is not a "person" under § 1983 and cannot be sued for damages | Dismissed: state is not a proper § 1983 defendant (Will) |
| Whether conditions/medical/assault allegations state constitutional claims | Justice alleges assault by jail staff, unmet medical/dental needs, unsanitary conditions, poor food, water issues, limited law library | State argues allegations are conclusory, at most negligence or discomfort, and do not show deliberate indifference or Eighth Amendment "extreme" conditions | Dismissed for failure to state a claim: assault allegations too conclusory; medical/conditions allegations do not allege deliberate indifference or cruel and unusual punishment |
Key Cases Cited
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (federal habeas is the proper vehicle to challenge the fact or duration of confinement)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (federal courts should abstain from interfering with pending state criminal prosecutions)
- Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (habeas petitioners must exhaust state court remedies)
- Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (states are not "persons" under § 1983 for money damages)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (deliberate indifference standard for serious medical needs)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (not every use of force by prison staff violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (conditions must deny minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities to violate the Eighth Amendment)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se complaints must be liberally construed)