Roudybush v. State of Kansas et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER-IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff has failed to show good cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. The court therefore dismisses the case. The case is closed. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 11/13/2017.Mailed to pro se party John Roudybush by certified mail ; Certified Tracking Number: 70123460000082626498(ydm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JOHN ROUDYBUSH,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-2303-CM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Upon reviewing plaintiff John Roudybush’s complaint and granting him leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara ordered plaintiff to show cause why his complaint
should not be dismissed. Judge O’Hara explained to plaintiff the deficiencies in plaintiff’s complaint
and gave plaintiff until August 16, 2017 to show cause to the undersigned judge. Plaintiff asked for an
extension of time, and Judge O’Hara extended the time to September 15, 2017. On August 30 and 31,
plaintiff again requested additional time to respond (Docs. 18 and 19). Document 18 also purported to
be a motion to review Judge O’Hara’s order. Finally, on September 14, plaintiff filed what appears to
be a 10-page response to Judge O’Hara’s order (Doc. 22). In that response, plaintiff again asked for an
additional 30 days to fully respond to the order.
On October 19, this court granted plaintiff a final extension of time to respond to Judge
O’Hara’s order—until November 1, 2017. That deadline has passed, and plaintiff did not respond
further. The court turns to the merits of plaintiff’s case and whether he has shown cause why the case
should not be dismissed.
The court has reviewed the order of Judge O’Hara and the reasons given therein for why
plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court fully agrees with the law

-1-

and analysis cited in Judge O’Hara’s order (Doc. 11). Upon de novo review, the court reaches the
same conclusion, and therefore adopts Judge O’Hara’s order in full. Plaintiff’s responses do not raise
valid specific objections to Judge O’Hara’s order. Instead, plaintiff makes general allegations about
his imprisonment and hernia. These allegations do not address the problems with plaintiff’s complaint
that Judge O’Hara identified in his order. Specifically, they do not show (1) how this court is
authorized to order criminal charges; (2) how any of the criminal laws cited provide a private right of
action; (3) why Younger abstention does not apply; (4) how plaintiff has exhausted any state remedies;
(5) why any defendant has the requisite culpability under § 1983; (6) how any defendant personally
participated in the alleged actions; (7) what custom or policy caused plaintiff’s injury; (8) why
defendants are not immune from suit; or (9) why this court should retain jurisdiction over state law
claims when it dismisses the federal claims. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that his complaint
should not be subject to dismissal.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff has failed to show good cause why the case
should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. The court therefore
dismisses the case.
The case is closed.
Dated this 13th day of November, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.

s/ Carlos Murguia_____________
CARLOS MURGUIA
United States District Judge

-2-