Buchanan v. Kansas, State of
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER adopting 6 Report and Recommendations; the present action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). Signed by Chief Judge J. Thomas Marten on 12/27/2016. Mailed to pro se party Marcus J. Buchanan by regular mail. (mam)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case No. 16-1325-JTM
STATE OF KANSAS,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Marcus Buchanan—who lists a Wichita, Kansas street address as his
residence in his Complaint but who nonetheless asserts himself to be a citizen of
Texas—brings this action asserting that Kansas “willfully violated the Texas constitution
and Texas tax code by levying a higher tax burden than Texas which causes financial
hardship.” (Dkt. 1, at 3). The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the action,
finding that “[b]ecause Plaintiff lives and works in Kansas and is suing the state of Kansas,
he cannot establish diversity jurisdiction.” (Dkt. 6, at 6). Further, the Recommendation
states, no federal question exists for “an individual living and working in Kansas” to obtain
relief on the grounds that Kansas is “a very high tax state when Texas is a low tax state.”
(Id. at 6-7)
The plaintiff has filed an Objection (Dkt. 8) to the Report and Recommendation
which does not challenge the Magistrate Judge’s factual finding that Buchanan lives and
works in Wichita, Kansas. He simply asserts again that he is entitled to relief because his
taxes are higher than they would be in Texas. Thus, he asserts that
relief [is] needed ... to change the Kansas tax structure to match exactly the
Texas tax structure which means to comply with all provisions of the Texas
constitution especially Article 8, Revenue and Taxation of the Texas
constitution and all of Texas tax codes which includes removal of corporate
and individual income tax to comply with article 8, section 24 of the Texas
(Id. at 8). He also complains that Kansas should be required to “comply with the policy of
the Texas Department of Transportation to prohibit using road salt on Kansas roads to melt
ice and snow and use MD-20 or nothing at all in order to prevent rust to my personal
automobile.” (Id. at 3).
The plaintiff supplies no authority for the maintenance of such an action. The Report
and Recommendation concludes that the Magistrate Judge “cannot glean a comprehensible
federal cause of action upon which relief may be granted,” and plaintiff’s Objection fails
to support the maintenance of any federal action. (Dkt. 7, at 7).
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 27th day of December, 2016, that the Report
and Recommendation (Dkt. 7) is hereby adopted, and the present action is dismissed under
28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2).
___s/ J. Thomas Marten______
J. THOMAS MARTEN, 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?