Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mangold v. State

United States District Court, D. Kansas

December 8, 2017

JONATHON L. MANGOLD, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW

          Sam A. Crow U.S. Senior District Judge

         Order Plaintiff Jonathon L. Mangold, is hereby required to show good cause, in writing, to the Honorable Sam A. Crow, United States District Judge, why this action should not be dismissed due to the deficiencies in Plaintiff's Complaint that are discussed herein.

         I. Nature of the Matter before the Court

         Plaintiff originally filed this case pro se in the Marion County District Court. Defendants State of Kansas and Marion County removed the action to this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446.

         Although the KDOC website reflects that Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Norton Correctional Facility in Norton, Kansas (“NCF”), [1] the events giving rise to Plaintiff's Complaint appear to have taken place during his detention at the Marion County Jail in Marion, Kansas (“MCJ”). Plaintiff claims violations of his 14th Amendment rights, “mistreatment of a confined person, ” cruel and unusual punishment, and “treating others with favoritism.”

         Plaintiff alleges that on September 19, 2017, he was placed in segregation after he had an altercation with CO Paul. Plaintiff called out CO Paul's name, and CO Paul came into A-Pod and grabbed Plaintiff and “choked him out” all the way to A-1, then all the way into booking. Plaintiff's actions dictated a seventy-two hour segregation placement. Plaintiff was denied bedding for three hours and then was only provided a blanket for four days. Plaintiff was denied access to his legal documents “during said time” as well as phone calls to anyone including his attorney. Plaintiff was held in booking for three days without a shower, toothpaste or soap.

         On September 22, 2017, CO Miles told Plaintiff that he had spoken with jail administrator “Jimmy” and Plaintiff would be moved out of lockdown that day. However, CO Zach and CO Paul refused to move Plaintiff. Instead, Plaintiff was moved to “medico” because he had an altercation with another inmate.

         On September 24, 2017, Plaintiff was going across the hall to his cell after receiving a haircut in D-Pod. Inmate Dakota wanted another inmate to “whip up” on Plaintiff, so he closed Plaintiff in D-Pod as he was going to work and told another inmate to assault Plaintiff. When CO Zach opened the door to D-Pod to let Plaintiff into medico, inmate Dakota punched Plaintiff through the food slot while slapping CO Zach's hand away. Plaintiff has been on lockdown for two weeks for calling out a CO's name, flooding a booking cell, and smearing coffee on a window. Plaintiff claims inmate Dakota received preferential treatment because he only received twenty-four hours in a booking cell, transfer to B-Pod for one week, and then he received his trustee job back. Plaintiff alleges that he remains in segregation despite his request to be moved to general population, and officers say “they have nowhere to put him.”

          Plaintiff alleges that CO Paul interfered with his access to bond. Lorie Hill told Plaintiff that she was going to “bond him out, ” but CO Paul told her about Plaintiff's actions at the jail, that Plaintiff might be held on other warrants, i.e. child support, and that Plaintiff allegedly owes another bondsman.

         Plaintiff alleges that he has made at least twelve medical requests to see a doctor and dentist. Even though Plaintiff eats, his stomach cramps and severely hurts as if he has not eaten for weeks. Plaintiff is having seizures too frequently, and Plaintiff cannot eat chips or cereal because his top gums are getting sore and starting to bleed. Plaintiff only has half of his top dentures, so they will not stay in even with denture cream. Plaintiff still has not been seen even though it has been almost three weeks since he first complained. Plaintiff has not had access to the canteen for three weeks, and the portions of food served are too small and do not equal federal guidelines of a 2500 calorie diet.

         Plaintiff names as Defendants the State of Kansas and Marion County, Kansas. Plaintiff seeks damages of one million dollars for mental and emotional distress, and proper care and treatment.

         II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

          The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Section “1915A applies to all prison litigants, without regard to their fee status, who bring civil suits against a governmental entity, officer, or employee.” Plunk v. Givens, 234 F.3d 1128, 1129 (10th Cir. 2000); see also Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998) (finding that the statutory screening provision under § 1915A applies to all prisoners' actions against governmental entities, officers, and employees, regardless whether the prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperi). The independent duty to screen prisoner complaints therefore extends to prisoner actions that have been removed from state court. See Duff v. Yount, 51 F. App'x. 520, 521 (6th Cir. 2002) (screening removed prisoner action under §§ 1915(e) and 1915A). Accordingly, the Court will screen Plaintiff's Complaint under § 1915A. The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2).

         “To 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)(citations omitted); Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1523 (10th Cir. 1992). A court liberally construes a pro se complaint and applies “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In addition, the court accepts all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true. Anderson v. Blake, 469 F.3d 910, 913 (10th Cir. 2006). On the other hand, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.