Jenkins vs Seward County

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 14 Motion for Order; and 17 Motion for reearing. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 6/1/15. Mailed to pro se party Anthony Ray Jenkins by regular mail (msb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANTHONY RAY JENKINS,
Plaintiff
vs.

Case No. 15-4860-SAC

SEWARD COUNTY TREASURER,
BILL MCBRIDE sheriff, GREG
SWANSON, ODESSA LEWIS,
MARTIN LEWIS, SERRY LEWIS,
and STATE OF KANSAS,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The court filed an order on May 18, 2015, (Dk. 12), dismissing
this action without prejudice because the plaintiff had not responded to the
Magistrate Judge's Order of April 7, 2015, (Dk. 8), requiring him to show
cause why claims against each individual defendant should not be dismissed
for failure to state a claim and against the State of Kansas should not be
dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds. (Dk. 8). The plaintiff was given
to April 24, 2015, to show cause in writing, and he was admonished that his
failure to do so would result in the dismissal of his complaint without further
notice. Id. at 5. Receiving nothing from the plaintiff, the court dismissed the
case for failure to respond and for the complaint’s failure to allege the
required factual details on the dates, actors, and wrongful conduct to

support the elements of an actionable claim for relief. Judgment was entered
on May 18, 2015. (Dk. 13).
On May 29, 2015, the plaintiff filed the pending “Motion for the
Honorable Judge and the Court to Order Seward County to Get off our Land
4th and Oklahoma, where Wayne Lundry was,” (Dk. 14), and the pending
“Motion for a Rehearing,” (Dk. 17). On that same day, the plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal. (Dk. 15). The district court retains jurisdiction to decide the
plaintiff’s pendings motions as having been filed before the notice of appeal.
The plaintiff’s motion for rehearing cites Kansas statutes and
state cases that support no legal propositions meaningfully relevant to what
the plaintiff has alleged to date. They do not establish any basis for federal
jurisdiction. They do not refer to any legal theories or claims on which relief
could be granted from what has been alleged. Presumably intended to be a
motion to alter and amend pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), the plaintiff’s
motion does not provide any of the recognized grounds for granting such
relief: (1) intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence
previously unavailable; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice. See Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012
(10th Cir. 2000). The motion is denied.
It is not clear what the plaintiff is seeking in his other motion for
relief. He again requests a court order requiring the “Seward County Tax
Office” to return land that he claims to own in Liberal, Kansas. He also adds
2

allegations regarding other African-Americans who have had their land sold
by the county. If the plaintiff’s filing is intended to be his response to the
show cause order, the court rejects it as untimely and as still lacking the
required factual details of dates, actors, and wrongful conduct to support an
actionable claim for relief. Pleading a viable claim for federal relief requires
more than alleging that the plaintiff has owned certain described property in
the past, that the county now owns it, and that the plaintiff wants the
property returned to him based on some unspecified wrongful conduct by
the county. Finding nothing argued in either of the plaintiff’s motions that
procedurally supports relief here and now, the court denies the motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for a court order
(Dk. 14) and the motion for a rehearing (Dk. 17) are denied.
Dated this 1st day of June, 2015, Topeka, Kansas.

s/Sam A. Crow
Sam A. Crow, U.S. District Senior Judge

3