Case Information
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS JOHN MARTIN PATTON, JR.,
Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 23-3096-JWL GRANT SPARKS, et al.,
Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff John Martin Patton, Jr. brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis . Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee being held at the
Johnson County Adult Detention Center (“JCADC”) in Olathe, Kansas. For the reasons discussed
below, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed or to file an
amended complaint that cures the identified deficiencies.
I. Nature of the Matter before the Court
The Complaint is based оn two different occurrences. The first is Plaintiff’s arrest on September 20, 2020. Plaintiff states that he was pulled over in Merriam, Kansas, by Officer Grant
Sparks for allegedly parking illegally. (Doc. 1, at 2). Plaintiff was arrested by Sparks for
possessing contraband and cuffed behind his back. Almost immediately, Plaintiff notifiеd Sparks
that he had a pinched nerve, for which he had sought treatment at a hospital a few days prior, and
the restraint position was causing him severe pain. Plaintiff asked to be cuffed in front. Sparks
denied the request but double-cuffed Plaintiff and took him to the Merriam Police Department.
During transport from Merriam to the JCADC, Plaintiff was single cuffed even tighter, despite
crying and begging the entire trip.
The second incident occurred when Plaintiff arrived at the JCADC. He states that he begged Deputy Hope and others for help. Instead of helping, he was told he was “not in pain, just
withdrawing,” then falsely accused of resisting, thrown to the floor, and kneed in the back and
neck with his arms hyperextended. He was left in isolation for approximately two days without
medical care, then only given Tylenol and ibuprofen. Plaintiff states that he was stuck in a
hunched-over position for over two weeks and continues to have severe pain and problems.
Plaintiff alleges that Sparks violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force upon his arrest. He also accuses Sparks of Equal Protection and Due Process violations, as well
as cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff further alleges that the City of Merriam conspired to
violate his right to Equal Protection, and that unknown deputies at the JCADC violated his Fourth
Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure, his right to Equal Protection, his right to
be free from cruel and unusual punishment, his right to Due Process, and his right to adequate
medical care.
Plaintiff names Offiсer Sparks; the City of Merriam; the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office; “John and Jane Does 1-100,” deputies at the JCADC; and Johnson County, Kansas as defendants.
He requests relief in the form of $825,000 in compensatory damages and injunctive relief.
II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
“Prisoner” is defined as “any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of,
convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms
and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(c). Additionally, with any litigant, such as Plaintiff, who is proceeding in forma pauperis,
the Court has a duty to screen the complaint to determine its sufficiency. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims
that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1)–(2).
“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.”
West v. Atkins,
(citations omitted); Northington v. Jackson , 973 F.2d 1518, 1523 (10th Cir. 1992). A court
liberally construes a pro se complaint and applies “less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.”
Erickson v. Pardus
,
all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true.
Anderson v. Blake
,
Cir. 2006). On the other hand, “when the allegаtions in a complaint, however true, could not raise
a claim of entitlement to relief,” dismissal is appropriate. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550
U.S. 544, 558 (2007).
A pro se litigant’s “conclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are
insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be based.”
Hall v. Bellmon
,
1110 (10th Cir. 1991). “[A] рlaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to
relief’ requires “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action.” Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). The complaint’s “factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief abovе the speculative level” and “to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 555, 570.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained “that, to state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did to [the pro se plaintiff]; when the defendant did
it; how the defendant’s action harmed [the plaintiff]; and, what specific lеgal right the plaintiff
believes the defendant violated.”
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents
,
(10th Cir. 2007). The court “will not supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff’s
complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff’s behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico , 113 F.3d
1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
The Tenth Circuit has pointed out that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Twombly and Erickson gave rise to a new standard of review for § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissаls. See Kay v.
Bemis
,
complaint to determine whether they plausibly support a legal claim for relief.” Kay , 500 F.3d at
1218 (citation omitted). Under this new standard, “a plaintiff must ‘nudge his claims across the
line from conceivable to plausible.’”
Smith
,
this context does not mean “likely to be true,” but rather refers “to the scope of the allegations in
a complaint: if they are so general that they encompass a wide swath of conduct, much of it
innocent,” then the plaintiff has not “nudged [his] claims across the line from conceivable to
plausible.”
Robbins v. Oklahoma
,
Ct. at 1974).
III. Discussion
A. Joinder of Claims and Parties
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure аpply to suits brought by prisoners. George v. Smith ,
govern other litigants.” See
Kay v. Bemis
,
States
,
access to counsel).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) governs permissive joinder of defendants and pertinently provides:
(2) Defendants. Persons . . . may be joinеd in one action as defendants if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.
Id. Rule 18(a) governs joinder of claims and pertinently provides: “A party asserting a claim . . .
may join . . . as many claims as it has against an opposing party.” While joinder is encouraged for
purposes of judicial economy, the “Fedеral Rules do not contemplate joinder of different actions
against different parties which present entirely different factual and legal issues.” Zhu v.
Countrywide Realty Co., Inc
.,
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in George that under “the controlling principle” in
Rule 18(a), “[u]nrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits.” George ,
against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.”).
Requiring adherence in prisoner suits to the federal rules regarding joinder of parties and claims prevents “the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s].” Id. It
also prevents prisoners from “dodging” the fee obligations [1] and the three strikes provisions [2] of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act. Id. (Rule 18(a) ensures “that prisoners pay the required filing fees—
for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any
prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees.”).
In sum, under Rule 18(a), the plaintiff may bring multiple claims against a single defendant.
Under Rule 20(a)(2), he may join in one action any other defendants who were involved in the
same transaction or occurrence and as to whom there is a common issue of law or fact. He may
not bring multiple claims against multiple defendants unless the prescribed nexus in Rule 20(a)(2)
is demonstrated with respect to all defendants named in the action.
The Federal Rules authorize the court, on its own initiative at any stage of the litigation, to drop any party and sever any claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; Nasious v. City & Cnty. of Denver Sheriff’s
Dept.
,
(1) misjoined parties may be dropped or (2) any claims against misjoined parties may be severed
and proceeded with separately).
Plaintiff complains of Defendant Stark using excessive force upon arrest by restraining Plaintiff’s arms behind his back. Then, he complains of an entirely separate incident involving
different defendants upon his arrival at the JCADC, along with the medical care he subsequently
recеived at the JCADC. Plaintiff is given the opportunity to file an amended complaint containing
only the claim against Stark or the claims against JCADC defendants. He may then file a separate
action if he wishes to pursue the other claim(s).
B. Improper Defendants
The Johnson County Sheriff's office is not a suable entity.
See e.g. Martinez v. Winner,
suable entity.”);
see also Moore v. Diggins
,
Denver Sheriff's Department “is not a suable entity under § 1983”); Faulkner v. Correct Care
Sols.
, No. 13-3127-SAC,
County Sheriff’s Department is not a suable entity); Burnett v. McPherson Cty. Sheriff's Dep't , No.
07-3038-SAC, 2008 WL 161681, at *3 (D. Kan. Jan. 16, 2008) (McPherson County Sheriff’s
Department is not a person within the meaning of §1983 and is not a suable entity); Williams v.
Clay Cty. Police Dep't
, No. 10-CV-2658-EFM,
aff'd, 442 F. App'x 396 (10th Cir. 2011) (“It is well established that under Kansas law, police
departments lack the capacity to be sued.”); Pfuetze v. Kansas , No. 10-1139-CM-GLR, 2010 WL
3892243, at *5 (D. Kan. Sept. 29, 2010) (Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Department is not a legal
entity amendable to suit). Therefore, all of Plaintiff’s claims against the Johnson County Sheriff’s
Department are subject to summary dismissal.
Plaintiff also names Merriam, Kansas, and Johnson County, Kansas, as defendants. To impose § 1983 liability on a county or municipality for acts taken by its employee, Plaintiff must
show that the employee committed a constitutional violation and that a county рolicy or custom
was “the moving force” behind the constitutional violation. Myers v. Oklahoma County Bd. of
County Comm’rs
,
Services
,
“a municipality can be found liable under § 1983 only where the municipality itself causes the
constitutional violation at issue,” and “there are limited circumstances in which an allegation of a
‘failure to train’ can be the basis for liability under § 1983.” City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris , 489
U.S. 378, 385–86 (1989). Plaintiff has pointed to no рolicy or custom of Merriam or of Johnson
County that caused the allegedly unconstitutional acts or inactions of its employees. Plaintiff’s
claims against the City of Merriam and Johnson County are subject to dismissal.
C. Personal Participation
An essential element of a civil rights claim against an individual is that person’s dirеct personal participation in the acts or inactions upon which the Complaint is based. Kentucky v.
Graham
,
Foote v. Spiegel
,
are not sufficient.
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal
,
inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant,
through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”). As a result, a
plaintiff is required to name each defendant not only in the caption of the complaint, but again in
the body of the complaint and to include in the body a description of the acts taken by each
defendant that violated plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights.
Plaintiff repeatedly refers to deputies or detention officers “John and Jane Does 1-100.” See Doc. 1, at 8. He makes no effort to describe actions or inaction taken by any individual at the
JCADC, other than mentioning Deputy Hope who he does not name as a defеndant. Plaintiff must
differentiate between these unknown deputies and describe the acts each took that allegedly
violated his rights. All of Plaintiff’s claims against “John and Jane Does 1-100” are subject to
dismissal.
IV. Response and/or Amended Complaint Required
Plaintiff is required to show good cause why the claims and defendants discussed above should not bе dismissed for the reasons stated herein. Plaintiff is also given the opportunity to file
a complete and proper amended complaint upon court-approved forms that cures all the
deficiencies discussed herein.
To add claims, significant factual allegations, or change defendants, a рlaintiff must submit a complete amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. An amended complaint is not simply an
addendum to the original complaint but instead completely supersedes it. Therefore, any claims
or allegations not included in the amended complaint are no longer before the Court. It follows
that a plaintiff may nоt simply refer to an earlier pleading, and the amended complaint must contain
all allegations and claims that a plaintiff intends to pursue in the action, including those to be
retained from the original complaint. Plaintiff must write the number of this case (23-3096-JWL)
at the top of the first page of his amended complaint, and he must name every defendant in the
caption of the amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Plaintiff should also refer to each
defendant again in the body of the amended complaint, where he must allege facts describing the
unconstitutional acts taken by each defendant including dates, locations, and circumstances.
Plaintiff must allegе sufficient additional facts to show a federal constitutional violation.
Plaintiff is given time to file a complete and proper amended complaint in which he concisely (1) raises only properly joined claims and defendants; (2) alleges sufficient facts to state
a claim for a federal constitutional violation and show a cause of action in federal court; and (3)
alleges sufficient facts to show personal participation by each named defendant.
If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within the prescribed time that cures all the deficiencies discussed herein, this matter will be decided based upon the current deficient
Complaint and may be dismissed without further notice for failure to state a claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted until June 5, 2023, in which to show good cause, in writing, why Plaintiff’s Complaint should not be dismissed for the reasons
stated herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted until June 5, 2023, in which to file a complete and proper amended complaint to cure all the deficiencies discussed herein.
The clerk is directed to send § 1983 forms and instructions to Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: This 5 th day of May, 2023, at Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Notes
[1] 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2) pertinently provide: “[I]f a prisoner brings a civil action or files an appеal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee.” To that end, the court “shall assess” an initial partial filing fee, when funds exist, and after payment of the initial fee, the prisoner “shall be required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of thе preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's account.” Id. Non-prisoner and prisoner litigants alike should not be allowed to combine their unrelated claims against different defendants into a single lawsuit simply to avoid paying another filing fee in a separate lаwsuit. Every litigant is required to responsibly weigh and individually bear, when possible, the costs of his or her decision to pursue litigation of disputes in federal court.
[2] 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this sеction if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.