Prine (ID 81295) v. Schroeder
NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Plaintiff is to show good cause in writing to the Honorable Sam A. Crow, United States Senior District Judge, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief. Show Cause Response due by 9/5/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse on 8/8/17.Mailed to pro se party John-Robert Prine by regular mail (msb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CASE NO. 17-3128-SAC-DJW
NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This matter is a civil action filed by a prisoner in state
custody. Plaintiff proceeds pro se, and his fee status is pending.
Plaintiff presents this action as a petition for declaratory
relief. The Court has examined the pleading and construes it as an
attempt to collect monetary damages from the defendant, the District
Attorney of Reno County, due to his failure to respond to plaintiff’s
request for production of documents and other discovery in an action
brought in state court.
A federal court must conduct a preliminary review of any case
in which a prisoner seeks relief against a governmental entity or an
officer or employee of such an entity. See 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a).
Following this review, the court must dismiss any portion of the
complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant
who is immune from that relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
In screening, a court liberally construes pleadings filed by a
party proceeding pro se and applies “less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007).
To state a claim for relief under Section 1983, a plaintiff must
allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws
of the United States and must show that the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988)(citations omitted).
To avoid a dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint
must set out factual allegations that “raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007). The court accepts the well-pleaded allegations in the
complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff. Id. However, “when the allegations in a complaint,
however, true, could not raise a [plausible] claim of entitlement to
relief,” the matter should be dismissed. Id. at 558. A court need not
accept “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action
supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009).
The pleading in this case identifies no ground for federal
Commercial Code and the Fair Debt Collection Act, he does not identify
any plausible basis for federal action in this matter. The state
district courts manage discovery in matters pending before them, and
they may impose sanctions for the failure to comply with discovery
In addition, plaintiff’s attempt to characterize his pleading
as an action that may proceed under diversity jurisdiction fails. The
parties to this matter reside in Kansas, and plaintiff makes no
See K.S.A. 60-237, Compelling discovery; failure to comply; sanctions.
allegation to the contrary. See generally, McEntire v. Kmart Corp.,
2010 WL 553443, at *3 (D.N.M. Feb. 9,2010)(“[t]he Supreme Court of
the United States has described th[e] statutory diversity requirement
as ‘complete diversity,’ and it is present only when no party on one
side of a dispute shares citizenship with any party on the other side
of a dispute.”)
Order to Show Cause
For the reasons set forth, the Court directs plaintiff to show
cause to the Honorable Sam A. Crow why this matter should not be
dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief.
The failure to file a written, specific response waives de novo
review of the matter by the District Judge, see Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 148-53 (1985) and also waives appellate review of factual
and legal issues. Makin v. Col. Dept. of Corr., 183 F.3d 1205, 1210
(10th Cir. 1999).
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED plaintiff shall show cause
as directed on or before September 5, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This 8th day of August, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ David J. Waxse
DAVID J. WAXSE
U.S. Magistrate 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?