Sikorski v. Ryan et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This matter is dismissed. Plaintiff shall pay the $350.00 filing fee for this action. He may, if necessary, pay such fee in installments. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 10/25/2011. (Mailed to pro se party William Lynndon Sikorski by regular mail.) (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
WILLIAM LYNNDON SIKORSKI,
(FNU) RYAN, Kansas City, Kansas,
Municipal City Court Judge, and
WYANDOTTE COUNTY, KANSAS,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on a civil rights action
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff sues a municipal
court judge, claiming he was held in custody although he had
offered proof that the grounds upon which he was held were
He seeks monetary damages.
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening of any
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss any claims which are
frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is
Plaintiff’s allegations against defendant Ryan challenge
his actions in the judicial role of presiding over a proceeding
in court. The defendant enjoys absolute judicial immunity for
acts taken in the execution of that role.
435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978).
Stump v. Sparkman,
Although plaintiff contends the
defendant erred in the decision concerning his custody, “[a]
judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he
took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his
authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he
has acted in the ‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” Id. at
356–57 (citation and footnote omitted).
Viewed in light of this immunity, plaintiff’s claim must be
dismissed, as defendant Ryan is immune from monetary damages.
Likewise, although plaintiff identifies Wyandotte County as
a defendant in the complaint, he makes no allegation of any act
or omission by that defendant.
This is insufficient to state a
claim for relief.
Plaintiff may pursue relief concerning allegedly illegal
custody through state court remedies, and, if those remedies
prove unsuccessful, through federal habeas corpus. However, his
claim under § 1983 against defendant Ryan fails due to the
defendant’s immunity, and he makes no allegation concerning
Accordingly, this matter must be dismissed.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED this matter is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff shall pay the $350.00
filing fee for this action.
He may, if necessary, pay such fee
in installments, as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Topeka, Kansas, this 25th day of October, 2011.
S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
United States Senior District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?