United States District Court, D. Kansas
JOHN L. STEWART, Plaintiff,
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, KANSAS, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. WAXSE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
September 24, 2016, Plaintiff, a prisoner appearing pro se
and in forma pauperis, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil
rights complaint. For the reasons discussed below,
Plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal without
Screening of Prisoner and In Forma Pauperis Complaints
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or
employee of such entity to determine whether summary
dismissal is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Additionally, with any litigant, such as Plaintiff, who is
proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court has a duty to screen
the complaint to determine its sufficiency. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). Upon completion of this screening, the Court must
dismiss any claim that is frivolous or malicious, fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. §
survive this review, the plaintiff must plead “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). In applying the Twombly standard,
the Court must assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual
allegations in the complaint and construe them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff. See Leverington v. City
of Colo. Springs, 643 F.3d 719, 723 (10thCir.
2011). While a pro se plaintiff's complaint must be
liberally construed, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007), pro se status does not relieve the plaintiff
of “the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a
recognized legal claim could be based.” Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.
complaint stems from his arrest for driving under the
influence (“DUI”) in Montgomery County, Kansas,
on December 12, 2014. Plaintiff was held and charged with a
misdemeanor, but the charges were voluntarily dismissed in
early January of 2015. Plaintiff was subsequently held
pursuant to a warrant from Jasper County, Missouri, and then
extradited to Missouri on January 27, 2015, to face a felony
DUI charge there. Plaintiff's first count claims his
imprisonment in Montgomery County from December 12, 2014,
through January 27, 2015, was unlawful. Plaintiff alleges he
did not receive “credit” for this 46 days of
February 9, 2015, the Montgomery County District Attorney
(“DA”) refiled charges against Plaintiff, this
time as DUI-3rd offense with at least one
conviction in the preceding ten (10) years, which is a
felony. Plaintiff alleges the DA strategically dismissed the
misdemeanor charge related to the December 12 arrest after
learning of the Missouri charge, planning to refile as a
filed a detainer with Missouri on August 31, 2015. Per the
Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (“IADA”),
Plaintiff received notice of the Montgomery County detainer
on October 6, 2015, and immediately requested disposition of
the Kansas charge. Defendant received notice of
Plaintiff's request on October 15, 2015. Plaintiff was
returned to Montgomery County on March 16, 2016. Under the
IADA, Montgomery County had 180 days from the receipt of
Plaintiff's request for disposition to commence trial on
the charge. The 180 days expired on April 12, 2016, without
trial commencing. As a result, the charge against Plaintiff
was dismissed with prejudice by the Montgomery County
District Court on May 25, 2016. Plaintiff was returned to
Missouri on June 3, 2016, to continue serving his sentence
there. Plaintiff's second count claims he was unlawfully
confined by Defendant from April 12, 2016, when the 180 days
expired, until June 3, 2016, when he was returned to
third count claims that the refiling of charges and issuance
of the detainer by Montgomery County negatively impacted his
release on parole in Missouri. His argument seems to be that
because the Montgomery County charge was ultimately
dismissed, he should be able to recover for the negative
impact on his Missouri parole determination.
sues one defendant, Montgomery County, Kansas, and he seeks
“the fullest compensation allowable for the 98
days” of allegedly unlawful confinement he suffered.
reviewing Plaintiff's complaint with the standards set
out above in mind, the Court finds that the complaint is
subject to summary dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)
and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for the following reasons.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is
immune from such ...