Thomas v. Kansas, State of

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This matter is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 08/02/22. Mailed to pro se party Nicholas D'Andre Thomas by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
NICHOLAS D’ANDRE THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 22-3113-SAC

STATE OF KANSAS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff and pretrial detainee Nicholas D’Andre Thomas filed
this pro se civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
misconduct and illegal action related to his ongoing state-court
criminal prosecution. For the reasons explained below, the Court
will dismiss this matter for failure to state a claim on which
relief can be granted.
In December 2020, Plaintiff was charged in Shawnee County
District

Court

with

one

count

of

aggravated

battery.

Those

proceedings are ongoing. Plaintiff filed the current civil rights
complaint in this Court on June 6, 2022, alleging that various
Kansas statutes were violated at in or relation to his ongoing
state-court criminal proceedings. He seeks “money relief, judicial
relief, punitive relief, TRO relief, injunctive relief, release
relief,

monetary

relief,

personal

relief,

declaratory

relief,

temporary relief, indemnification relief, further relief, [and]
preemptory relief.” (Doc. 1, p. 5.)
1

Because Plaintiff is a prisoner, the Court is required by
statute to screen his complaint and to dismiss the complaint or any
portion thereof that is frivolous, fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, or seeks relief from a defendant immune from
such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a),

(b), and

(e)(2)(B).

After

screening, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order to Show Cause
(MOSC) on June 29, 2022. (Doc. 6.) Therein, as it has in Plaintiff’s
other cases before this Court, the Court explained to Plaintiff
that if the three conditions set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37, 47 (1971), are present, the Court must not intervene in
ongoing state criminal proceedings unless there is “great and
immediate” danger of “irreparable injury.” (Doc. 6, p. 3-4.)
The MOSC also informed Plaintiff that he had not named a proper
defendant and advised him that the complaint failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted because he alleged only violations
of state laws. Id. at 4-6; See D.L. v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 497,
596 F.3d 68, 776 (10th Cir. 2010) (holding that section “1983
affords a remedy for violations of federal law and does not provide
a basis for redressing violations of state law”). The MOSC allowed
Plaintiff the opportunity to show cause why this matter should not
be dismissed. (Doc. 6, p. 6.)
Plaintiff filed a “Memorandum and Order to Show Cause” (Doc.
7) on July 7, 2022, which the Court liberally construes as a
response to the MOSC. Plaintiff has not filed any other documents
2

and the time to respond to the MOSC has now passed. Even liberally
construing Plaintiff’s response to the MOSC, as is appropriate since
Plaintiff proceeds pro se,

the response

does not allege that

Defendant violated Plaintiff’s federal rights. (Doc. 7.) Rather,
the response merely again alleges that Plaintiff’s state-court
criminal prosecution has involve the violation of multiple Kansas
statutes. Id. As the MOSC advised Plaintiff, allegations that an
individual violated state law is insufficient to state a claim on
which relief can be granted under § 1983.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be
granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 2nd day of August, 2022, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge

3