United States District Court, D. Kansas
JOAN E. FARR, pro se, Plaintiff,
DARYL DAVIS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION
KENNETH G. GALE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion to Compel filed by pro
se Plaintiff Joan Farr (hereinafter
“Plaintiff”). (Doc. 94.) Also pending is
Plaintiff's “Motion for Hearing on Motion to Compel
and Motion for Leave to Join Additional Parties as
Defendants.” (Doc. 104.) For the reasons set forth
below, Plaintiff's motions are DENIED.
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
without prejudice as a result of the stay. (Doc. 34, text
the expiration of the stay, Plaintiff re-filed her motion to
amend. (Doc. 36.) Defendants objected to the requested
amendment, arguing that 18 U.S.C. 242 “authorizes
criminal prosecution for various acts; it does not authorize
a private right of action.” (Doc. 37, at 1.) The
undersigned Magistrate Judge issued its Report &
Recommendation to the District Court that Plaintiff's
renewed motion to amend be denied as futile. (Doc. 38.)
Plaintiff objected to this Court's recommendation (Doc.
49), but the District Court ultimately adopted, in full, the
recommendation and denied Plaintiff's requested amendment
Motion to Compel (Doc. 94).
26(b) states that
[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at state in the action, the amount
in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant
information, the parties' resources, the importance of
the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not
be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
such, the requested information must be nonprivileged,
relevant, and proportional to the needs of the case to be
discoverable. Within this framework, the ...