United States District Court, D. Kansas
PATRICK C. LYNN, Plaintiff,
SAMMY CLINE, et al., Defendants.
MURGUIA U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
brings this pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. On May 7, 2019, the Court entered a
Memorandum and Order (Doc. 15) granting Plaintiff until June
6, 2019, to file a proper amended complaint that complies
with the rules as set forth in the Memorandum and Order. On
May 30, 2019, the Court entered an Order (Doc. 19) granting
Plaintiff's motion for a sixty-day extension of time and
extending the deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint to August 6, 2019. This matter comes before the
Court on Plaintiff's Second Status Update & Motion
for Telephonic Hearing (Doc. 20); Plaintiff's Amended
Motion for 90 Days Time Extension (Doc. 21); Plaintiff's
Submission of Evidentiary Proof Re Corrupt Obstructions of
Admin. Remedies & Request for Intervention Relief (Doc.
22); and Plaintiff's 3rd status Report (Doc. 23).
alleges in his Second Status Update (Doc. 20) that he
submitted his motion for a 60-day extension of time (Doc. 16)
to staff for efiling on Friday, May 24, 2019, but it was not
efiled until Tuesday, May 28, 2019. Plaintiff acknowledges
that the motion was returned to him on May 24th with a
post-it-note stating that the prison library, which does the
efiling, was closed until Tuesday, May 28th. Plaintiff
alleges that he drafted an amended motion for a ninety-day
extension of time on May 28, which was “inadvertently
left unsigned & dated” when he submitted it for
efiling on May 29. Plaintiff refiled his motion for a 90-day
extension of time as Doc. 21. Plaintiff also alleges that LCF
staff criminally destroyed his legal files and asks the Court
to schedule a video-telephonic hearing.
claim regarding the delay in filing his motion for extension
of time does not warrant any relief. Plaintiff was advised
that the library was closed Friday afternoon and the Court
notes that Monday, May 27th was a holiday. His motion was
filed Tuesday morning and the Court granted his motion on May
30, 2019-well before the original June 6 deadline. Regarding
Plaintiff's legal files, the Court's Order (Doc. 19)
granting his motion for extension of time stated that:
“the Court will not intervene in the day-to-day prison
operations involving the transfer of property. If Plaintiff
believes his property was mishandled, he must first pursue
his claim through the facility's administrative grievance
procedures.” (Doc. 19, at 1.) Plaintiff's request
for a hearing is also denied. Plaintiff's complaint has
not survived screening and therefore no defendants have been
served. Therefore, Plaintiff would be the only party at the
hearing and he has shown that he is perfectly capable of
expressing his claims in writing. Any further requests for a
hearing prior to service will be summarily denied.
Amended Motion for 90 Days' Time Extension (Doc. 21)
re-argues his issues regarding his legal files as set forth
in his original motion. Plaintiff then sets forth instances
of alleged abuses occurring over the past four years.
Regarding his legal files, Plaintiff argues that he packed
his files into three transfer boxes in anticipation of his
transfer to LCF, and staff transferred the contents into five
boxes when conducting an inventory. Staff notified the warden
at LCF regarding the situation and told him that Plaintiff
was in compliance with the three-box limit despite the
transfer to five boxes. Plaintiff alleges that when he
arrived at LCF, the warden was on vacation, so his property
was transferred to the LCF Property Room. Plaintiff asks for
a 90-day extension of time to allow him to recuperate from
his upcoming heart surgery and to obtain access to his
property. Plaintiff also asks the Court to order the criminal
abuses to cease and to call upon the Kansas U.S.
Attorney's Office to investigate the alleged violations.
Court will grant Plaintiff's request to the extent that
the Court will grant Plaintiff an additional thirty-day
extension of time in addition to the sixty-day extension
previously granted. However, Plaintiff is responsible for
monitoring any issues involving the statute of limitations.
remainder of Plaintiff's motion at Doc. 21 is denied.
This Court cannot order the initiation of criminal charges,
which is a decision within the discretion of prosecuting
attorneys. See Presley v. Presley, 102 Fed.Appx.
636, 636-37 (10th Cir. 2004) (holding that a court order for
“investigation and prosecution of various people for
various crimes” would “improperly intrude upon
the separation of powers”). This Court's May 7,
2019 Memorandum and Order (Doc. 15) addressed Plaintiff's
request for referral to a Federal Grand Jury and for an order
compelling the Kansas U.S. Attorney to present Plaintiff and
others before a Grand Jury. The Court held that Section 3332
does not create a private right of action, and decisions
regarding what charge to file or bring before a grand jury is
that of the prosecutor, not the court. (Doc. 15, at 13-14.)
The Court denies Plaintiff's request to order the Kansas
U.S. Attorney's Office to investigate alleged violations.
Any further request by Plaintiff to order an investigation or
to compel the U.S. Attorney's Office to refer matters to
a grand jury will be summarily denied.
also filed a “Submission of Evidentiary Proof Re
Corrupt Obstructions of Admin. Remedies & Request for
Intervention Relief” (Doc. 22), arguing that he was
denied a signed and dated copy of a five-page personal injury
claim he submitted on May 29, 2019, and that he is being
denied access to administrative remedies. Plaintiff attaches
a five-page grievance, including a personal injury claim
form, signed and dated May 29, 2019. (Doc. 22-1.)
asks the Court to “grant declaratory relief that this
obstruction/rejection of [his] viable admin. remedy injury
claim satisfies exhaustion of nonavailable admin.
remedies” and to grant injunctive relief prohibiting
Sgt. Chris Ross from participating in Plaintiff's
grievance procedures and to compel Warden Ronny Baker to
personally address all future grievances filed by Plaintiff.
(Doc. 22, at 2.) Plaintiff again asks for a referral to the
U.S. Attorney's Office for investigation, which is denied
for the reasons set forth above.
argues that he did not receive a signed and dated copy of his
claim form, although it appears as though he attaches it to
his motion. Regardless, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief
regarding his dissatisfaction with the grievance process. The
Tenth Circuit has held several times that there is no
constitutional right to an administrative grievance system.
Gray v. GEO Group, Inc., No. 17-6135, 2018 WL
1181098, at *6 (10th Cir. March 6, 2018) (citations omitted);
Von Hallcy v. Clements, 519 Fed.Appx. 521, 523-24
(10th Cir. 2013); Boyd v. Werholtz, 443 Fed.Appx.
331, 332 (10th Cir. 2011); see also Watson v. Evans,
No. 13-cv-3035-EFM, 2014 WL 7246800, at *7 (D. Kan. Dec. 17,
2014) (failure to answer grievances does not violate
constitutional rights or prove injury necessary to claim
denial of access to courts); Strope v. Pettis, No.
03-3383-JAR, 2004 WL 2713084, at *7 (D. Kan. Nov. 23, 2004)
(alleged failure to investigate grievances does not amount to
a constitutional violation); Baltoski v. Pretorius,
291 F.Supp.2d 807, 811 (N.D. Ind. 2003) (finding that
“[t]he right to petition the government for redress of
grievances . . . does not guarantee a favorable response, or
indeed any response, from state officials”).
Plaintiff's request for relief in Doc. 22 is denied.
Third Status Report notifies the Court that on June 8, 2019,
when he requested a new roll of toilet paper, staff informed
him that he had to first give them the empty roll. Plaintiff
tossed the empty roll through the cell bars and onto the run,
which resulted in the staff member telling him to “piss
off” before continuing down run. Plaintiff alleges that
this incident caused his blood pressure to skyrocket and
resulted in a trip to LCF clinic's ER and then a trip by
ambulance to KU Hospital. Plaintiff alleges that when he
returned to LCF after a four-day stay at the hospital, his
“butt pad/warming blanket” which he has had for
nearly two years was confiscated. Plaintiff also complains
about delays in using the phone to call his attorney, which
resulted in him finally calling at a time when his attorney
was not available, and two disciplinary reports for
Plaintiff's failure to return the phone to staff when
ordered to do so. Plaintiff again asks the Court to schedule
a video-telephonic hearing.
extent Plaintiff is seeking a hearing or any other relief in
his Third Status Report, such a request is denied. Plaintiff
continues to update the Court on his daily grievances. Any
such grievances must be exhausted through the prison's
administrative grievance procedure and then brought pursuant
to a newly-filed civil rights action, or as part of his
amended complaint in this case if appropriate under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's requests
for relief in Docs. 20, 22 and 23 are
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended
Motion for 90 Days Time Extension (Doc. 21) is
granted to the extent that the Court will
grant Plaintiff an additional thirty-day extension of time to