United States District Court, D. Kansas
JOAN E. FARR, pro se, Plaintiff,
DARYL DAVIS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER ON MULTIPLE MOTIONS and REPORT
& RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY MOTION TO JOIN ADDITIONAL
KENNETH G. GALE United States Magistrate Judge
BEFORE THE COURT are the following motions filed by pro
se Plaintiff Joan Farr (hereinafter
1. Motion to Stipulate (Doc. 44);
2. Motion to Join Additional Party as Plaintiff (Doc. 45);
3. Motion for Leave to Join Additional Defendants (Doc. 46);
4. Motion for Rule 35 Mental Evaluation (Doc. 48).
has responded to each of the motions. Plaintiff has replied
(Doc. 61) to the Motion to Join Additional Party as Plaintiff
(Doc. 45), but chose not to reply as to the other motions.
Although replies have yet to be filed to the remaining
motions, the Court finds that additional briefing would not
be beneficial. As such, the Court will address each motion
filed the present lawsuit, pro se, individually and
on behalf of residents of the Huckleberry Estates addition to
Derby, Kansas. (See Doc. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants violated her First Amendment rights and converted
her private property. (Id.) She also brings a claim
for “intentional emotional distress/tort of
outrage.” (Id.) Among her factual allegations
is that Defendants influenced the police to harass her.
previously moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims, arguing
that she failed to sufficiently plead a federal cause of
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because she did not
adequately allege that Defendants were acting under color of
state law. (See Doc. 13.) The District Court denied
Defendants' motion, holding that
Plaintiff has pleaded a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, as well as underlying facts that could
potentially support such a claim. Plaintiff's complaint
states that defendant Davis called the sheriff's office
and urged officers to arrest plaintiff's son at
plaintiff's house. Then, approximately eight officers
surrounded plaintiff's house, drew their guns, and began
banging on her doors and yelling for her son to come out.
This allegedly continued for almost an hour, with one of the
officers shouting “If he doesn't come out,
we're coming in!” Lastly, the complaint states,
“[T]he sheriff's officers finally left, since they
had no legal authorization to enter plaintiff's
home.” Taken together, and when the pro se
plaintiff's complaint is construed liberally, plaintiff
has alleged facts that could allow a reasonable jury to infer
that defendants conspired together to successfully exert
influence over the police, and therefore should be treated as
state actors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(Doc. 20, at 5-6.)
initially filed a motion to amend last fall, seeking leave to
add violations of 18 U.S.C. § 242. That federal statute
[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance,
regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any
State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to
the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the
United States. . . shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(Doc. 27, at 1.) Soon thereafter, Plaintiff requested and
received a stay of 120 days in this case because of
persisting health issues and impending surgery. (Docs. 31;
see also, Doc. 32, text order granting stay.)
Plaintiff's then-pending motion to amend was denied