United States District Court, D. Kansas
NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
J. WAXSE U.S. Magistrate Judge.
Joshua Hamilton Fairbanks, a county inmate appearing pro se,
brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. For
the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff is ordered to show
cause to the Honorable Sam A. Crow why his complaint should
not be dismissed.
Nature of the Matter before the Court
complaint (Doc. #1) is based on the following allegations.
Plaintiff was in the parking lot of 2409 Morningside Drive on
October 19, 2016, when officers from the Lawrence Police
Department (“LPD”) approached him. Plaintiff
agreed to a voluntary interview and was taken to the
LPD's Investigations and Training Center where the
interview was conducted. He was then returned to 2409
Morningside Drive where LPD officers executed a search
warrant on Plaintiff's apartment. According to Plaintiff,
the warrant specifically referred to “all gray or black
bandanas, ” but the officers obtained a purple bandana
and a red bandana. LPD Detective Jamie Len Lawson then
conducted two custodial interrogations of Plaintiff without
advising Plaintiff of his Miranda rights.
was released but was arrested the next day pursuant to an
arrest warrant. He remains in the Douglas County Jail.
to online records of the Douglas County District Court, of
which this Court takes judicial notice, Plaintiff was charged
with one count each of aggravated burglary (K.S.A.
21-5807(b)) and attempted aggravated robbery (K.S.A.
21-5420(b)). He pled no contest to attempted aggravated
burglary and attempted robbery (K.S.A. 21-5420(a)) in August
of 2017, and is awaiting sentencing.
claims he was “unlawfully stopped, searched, arrested,
and detained.” Doc. #1, p. 2. He does not specify which
of his constitutional rights were allegedly violated.
Plaintiff describes his request for relief as “some
form of financial compensation for the unlawful acts
committed against me.” Doc. #1, p. 6.
Statutory Screening of Prisoner 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. See 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 upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b),
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.
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. 1991). The Court need not
accept “mere conclusions characterizing pleaded
facts.” Bryson v. City of Edmond, 905 F.2d
1386, 1390 (10th Cir. 1990). “[A]
plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his
entitlement to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555 (internal quotation marks omitted).
state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the
violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of
the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation
was committed by a person acting under color of state
law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988);
Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1523 (10th
Cir. 1992). In addressing a claim brought under § 1983,
the analysis begins by identifying the specific
constitutional right allegedly infringed. Graham v.
Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989). The validity of the
claim then must be judged by reference to the specific
constitutional standard which governs that right.