Burnett v. State of Kansas

Filing 15

ORDER ENTERED: The amended complaint is dismissed as stating no claim for relief. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 1/5/2012. (Mailed to pro se party Charles A. Burnett by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CHARLES A. BURNETT,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 10-3180-SAC

STATE OF KANSAS, et al.,
Defendants.

O R D E R
Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis on a pro se amended
complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On June 24, 2011,

the court directed plaintiff to show cause why the amended complaint
should not be summarily dismissed as stating no claim for relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Plaintiff seeks damages1 on broad allegations concerning the
conditions of his pretrial confinement in the Atchison County jail,
and names four defendants in the amended complaint: John Calhoon as
the Atchison County Sheriff; Travis Wright as a Captain at the
Atchison County jail; and “Doe” defendants as a nurse and a doctor
at the jail.

Plaintiff alleges that he was not provided adequate

medical care, that staff wrongfully interfered with his legal mail,
that he was not provided adequate underwear or hygiene supplies,
that his request for legal resources was wrongfully denied, and that
his safety was compromised when an offender plaintiff had identified
as robbing plaintiff’s house was placed in plaintiff’s cell.

1

The

To the extent plaintiff also sought injunctive and declaratory
relief, any such request was rendered moot by plaintiff’s transfer
from the jail to the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections
upon his conviction.
See Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334 (8th
Cir.1985)(claim for injunctive relief moot if no longer subject to
conditions). See also Cox v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 43 F.3d 1345, 1348
(10th Cir.1994)(declaratory relief subject to mootness doctrine).

court found the factual allegations in the amended complaint were
insufficient to plausibly find that any violation of plaintiff’s
constitutional rights.
Having reviewed plaintiff’s response, the court finds plaintiff
essentially reasserts arguments for relief based on any violation of
postal regulations, and on any potential risk of harm to his safety.
The court disagrees for the reasons previously stated in the show
cause order, and continues to find no actionable claim is stated
against any defendant named in the amended complaint.

Plaintiff

also broadly complains of racial discrimination at the jail, a claim
not included in the amended complaint, but even if it were properly
asserted, plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory at best and would
be summarily dismissed as stating no claim for relief.

See Hall v.

Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991)("conclusory allegations
without supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a
claim on which relief can be based”).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein and in the show
cause order entered on June 24, 2011, the court dismisses the
amended complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the amended complaint is dismissed
as stating no claim for relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 5th

day of January 2012 at Topeka, Kansas.

s/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge

2