Daniels v. State of Kansas et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This matter is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 1/29/2025. Mailed to pro se party Michael Goings Daniels by regular mail. (jal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MICHAEL GOINGS DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 24-3221-JWL
STATE OF KANSAS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is in
custody at the Andrew County Jail Savannah, Missouri. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. On December 23, 2024, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order
to Show Cause (Doc. 5) (“MOSC”), ordering Plaintiff to show good cause why his Complaint
should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the MOSC. This matter is before the Court
on Plaintiff’s response (Doc. 6). The Court’s screening standards are set forth in the MOSC.
Plaintiff’s claims relate to his state criminal proceedings. Plaintiff alleges that in 2022 he
filed an “Affidavit of Truth” and a “Mandate to Dismiss” in his state criminal proceedings and
received no response from the state court. (Doc. 1, at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that his case went to
trial on August 21, 2024, and he filed a motion to dismiss during the trial and again the state
court failed to respond and sentenced Plaintiff to six months of incarceration in Wyandotte
County. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the District Attorney presented Officer Lewis as a witness
“which fulfilled the State Constitution but the accuser never came to fulfill the United States
Constitution.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleges that the state court ignored his motion alleging due
process violations. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he was sentenced to six months of incarceration
1
“despite KSA 8-262 requir[ing] a 5[-]day sentence with a $100 dollar fine, denying one hour
recreation, extremely cold facility with inadequate covering or blankets.” Id. at 4.
Plaintiff also alleges “human trafficking” because he was “farmed out” to another state.
Id. at 5. Plaintiff alleges that on September 5, 2024, Wyandotte County transported Plaintiff to
the Andrew County Jail in Missouri. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he was back in Wyandotte County
from October 14 to October 17, 2024, and then was returned to Missouri.
Plaintiff names as defendants: the State of Kansas; Robert A. Martinez, Judicial Officer;
and Wyandotte County. For relief, Plaintiff seeks $3,570,000 in Federal Reserve Notes, and “the
removal of any and all sanction and reinstatement fees, court costs that ha[ve] been placed on
[his] commercial license which prevent [him] from the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of
happiness and any and all conviction[s] reversed.” Id. at 6.
The Court held in the MOSC that to the extent Plaintiff challenges the validity of his
sentence in his state criminal case, his federal claim must be presented in habeas corpus.
Likewise, before Plaintiff may proceed in a federal civil action for monetary damages based
upon an invalid conviction or sentence, he must show that his conviction or sentence has been
overturned, reversed, or otherwise called into question. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
Plaintiff has not alleged that the conviction or sentence has been invalidated.
Plaintiff also claims cruel and unjust punishment because he was denied one hour of
recreation, and that the facility was extremely cold with inadequate coverings or blankets.
(Doc. 1, at 4.)
The Court found in the MOSC that Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to allege a
“sufficiently serious” deprivation or facts showing he is “incarcerated under conditions posing a
substantial risk of serious harm.” See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Plaintiff
also failed to allege “deliberate indifference” by any defendant.
2
The Court also found that Plaintiff’s claim based on human trafficking was subject to
dismissal as frivolous and for failure to state a constitutional violation. Plaintiff claims that
transferring him to an out-of-state jail constitutes human trafficking. Human trafficking is a
criminal offense and Plaintiff does not have a private cause of action to enforce criminal laws.
See Droge v. Rempel, 180 P.3d 1094, 1097 (Kan. App. 2008) (“ ‘Kansas appellate courts
generally will not infer a private cause of action where a statute provides criminal penalties but
does not mention civil liability.’ ”) (quoting Pullen v. West, 92 P.3d 584, 597 (Kan. 2004)); see
also LeTourneau v. Venture Corp., Case No. 15-cv-2629-JAR, 2017 WL 2378331, at *6 (D.
Kan. June 1, 2017) (“the Court is unwilling to infer a private cause of action for a statute with
solely criminal penalties”); cf. Sullivan v. Univ. of Kansas Hosp. Auth., 844 F. App’x 43, 51
(10th Cir. 2021) (unpublished) (“[T]he statutory provisions outlawing obstruction of justice do
not provide a private cause of action.”) (citation omitted).
The Court also found that: the State of Kansas and its agencies are absolutely immune
from suits for money damages under the Eleventh Amendment; Defendant Robert A. Martinez is
a state court judge for the Wyandotte County District Court and is entitled to judicial immunity;
and Plaintiff’s claims against Wyandotte County are subject to dismissal because he has failed to
allege a requisite custom or policy or to name a policymaker.
Plaintiff has filed a response to the MOSC, arguing that exhaustion is not required for a
§ 1983 case. (Doc. 6, at 1–2.) Although exhaustion is required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), the
Court’s MOSC did not address exhaustion as a basis for dismissal. Plaintiff continues to attack
his conviction in his response, alleging the denial of due process, trial by an impartial jury, and
unconstitutional procedures. Id. at 2. The remainder of Plaintiff’s response alleges a right to
travel upon the public highways and argues that traffic infractions are not a crime. Id. at 2–3.
3
Plaintiff’s response fails to address the deficiencies noted in the Court’s MOSC. Plaintiff
has failed to address the Heck bar or his failure to allege a sufficiently serious deprivation or
facts showing he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm.
Plaintiff has also failed to address his human trafficking claim. Plaintiff has failed to show good
cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that this matter is dismissed for
failure to state a claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated January 29, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?