Manning v. Vennart et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This action is dismissed without prejudice for the reasons stated herein. All pending motions are denied. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 9/9/2021. Mailed to pro se party Jamie Manning by regular mail. (jal)

Download PDF
Case 5:20-cv-03176-SAC Document 8 Filed 09/09/21 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS JAMIE MANNING, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 20-3176-SAC WILLIAM VENNART, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges he was unlawfully arrested in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. He raises this claim in connection with his pending prosecution in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas (Case No. 19 CR 00389). On February 8, 2021, the Court entered a memorandum and order to show cause (MOSC) (ECF No. 5) directing Plaintiff to show cause why the abstention doctrine prescribed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Younger v. Harris does not require the dismissal of his complaint. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). Plaintiff has filed a motion and a response to the MOSC, but neither of his filings address Younger abstention, let alone show good cause why the doctrine is not applicable to his Complaint. The motion (ECF No. 6) requests leave to file an amended complaint, but Plaintiff indicates the only change he wants to make is to add two defendants (the city of Overland Park and Johnson 1 Case 5:20-cv-03176-SAC Document 8 Filed 09/09/21 Page 2 of 2 County, Kansas). Adding defendants does not alter the fact that his claims are related to his pending state prosecution and require the Court’s abstention. Because (1) there is an ongoing state criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding, (2) the state court affords an adequate forum to hear the claims raised in the plaintiff's federal complaint, and (3) the state proceedings implicate important state interests, the Court is obligated to dismiss this action. See Weitzel v. Div. of Occupational & Prof'l Licensing, 240 F.3d 871, 875 (10th Cir. 2001). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice for the reasons stated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: This 9th day of September, 2021, at Topeka, Kansas. s/ Sam A. Crow SAM A. CROW U.S. Senior District Judge 2

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?