Jenkins v. Wilburn et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 23 Motion for Order. See order for details. Signed by District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree on 11/9/17. Mailed to pro se party Anthony Ray Jenkins by regular mail (msb) Modified text on 11/13/2017 (msb).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ANTHONY RAY JENKINS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15-4869-DDC-KGG
v.
SEDGWICK COUNTY KANSAS, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on plaintiff’s pro se1 “Motion for Order to pay $2700
per day for jail time” (Doc. 23). Plaintiff first filed a Complaint in this case on April 15, 2015.
And, on that same day, he filed a Motion of Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. On April 24,
2015, Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
issued a Report and Recommendations (Doc. 6) that recommended dismissing plaintiff’s
Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failing to state a claim. On May 22, 2015, Judge
Richard D. Rogers adopted Judge Gale’s Report and Recommendations and dismissed plaintiff’s
Complaint. Doc. 9. On June 1, 2015, plaintiff appealed Judge Rogers’s order dismissing his
Complaint (Doc. 14). And, then, he moved to dismiss his appeal on June 15, 2015. The Tenth
Circuit granted plaintiff’s motion and dismissed his appeal on June 25, 2015. Doc. 22.
Now, more than two years later, plaintiff seeks an order awarding him $2700 per day for
time he spent in Sedgwick County Jail. Doc. 23. This is the same relief plaintiff requested in his

1
     The court must construe the filings of a pro se party liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–
21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). But, the court is not an advocate and
should not supply additional facts or construct a legal theory to aid a party proceeding pro se. Whitney v.
New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173–74 (10th Cir. 1997). The court is “not obligated to comb the record in
order to make [the party’s] arguments for [him].” Mitchell v. City of Moore, Okla., 218 F.3d 1190, 1199
(10th Cir. 2000). 

Complaint. Doc. 1 at 6. But, the court already has dismissed his Complaint. So, plaintiff
presently has no viable claim capable of supporting his request for relief. Plaintiff also provides
no reason or authority allowing the court to grant the relief his motion seeks—that is, monetary
damages for time he spent in jail. The court thus denies plaintiff’s motion.  

This case is closed. Plaintiff must refrain from filing additional documents in this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT plaintiff’s “Motion for

Order to pay $2700 per day for jail time” (Doc. 23) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 9th day of November, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge

2