Dean v. Dean, et al.

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 17 Order to Show Cause, 19 Plaintiff's amended complaint, 20 Plaintiff's response to the show cause order, and denying 22 Motion for Review. This action is dismissed. Signed by District Judge John W. Broomes on 5/8/2024. (ca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
BRITTANY ELIZABETH DEAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 24-4008-JWB

DANA DEAN, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge’s order to show cause why this case
should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim (Doc. 17), Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc.
19), Plaintiff’s response to the show cause order (Doc. 20), and Plaintiff’s motion for review of a
state court eviction proceeding. (Doc. 22). The court determines that Plaintiff’s amended
complaint supersedes her original complaint that was subject to the show cause order, but that her
amended complaint should still be dismissed.
When a party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, § 1915(e)(2) permits the court
to screen the party’s complaint. The court must dismiss the case if it determines the action “(i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
To state a claim, a complaint must contain enough allegations of fact to state a claim for relief that
is plausible on its face. Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008). All wellpleaded facts and the reasonable inferences derived from those facts are viewed in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff. Archuleta v. Wagner, 523 F.3d 1278, 1283 (10th Cir. 2008). Conclusory
allegations, however, have no bearing upon the court’s consideration. Shero v. City of Grove,
Okla., 510 F.3d 1196, 1200 (10th Cir. 2007).

A review of Plaintiff’s amended complaint reveals a rather impassioned assertion of a
multitude of mostly state and federal crimes related to allegations of abuse along with malfeasance
by government actors. While the court takes such allegations seriously, federal courts are courts
of limited jurisdiction and lack the authority to police every conceivable assertion of misconduct.
More specific to this case, private citizens lack the authority to bring civil actions to prosecute
crimes. Thus it appears that the only discernable claim that might be appropriate for the court to
consider from the amended complaint is one for violation of Plaintiff’s rights under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Broadly construing Plaintiff’s pro se pleadings, it appears she is bringing claims under
§ 1983 for having to face her alleged abuser in court and for a state court granting custody of her
children to their fathers. (Doc 19 at 3–5.) Unfortunately, much of the amended complaint is
illegible due to overlapping text. Plaintiff fails to identify actions by individual actors, and she
also fails to identify what constitutional rights were violated. She thus fails to state a claim. See
Robbins, 519 F.3d at 1249–50 (10th Cir. 2008) (noting it is “particularly important” in § 1983
cases “that the complaint make clear exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom”). The
court therefore dismisses the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The court further
dismisses Plaintiff’s motion to review a state-court eviction proceeding because district courts
generally do not have jurisdiction to review state court decisions. Escalante v. Escalante, No. 232491-JWB, 2024 WL 382548, at *3 (D. Kan. Jan. 31, 2024).
This action is dismissed. Plaintiff’s motion for review (Doc. 22) is also denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 8, 2024

/s/John W. Broomes
JOHN W. BROOMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2