Opinion
24-3127-JWL
10-31-2024
DONALD LEE BENNETT, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF KANSAS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is in custody at the Johnson County Adult Detention Center in Olathe, Kansas. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On September 23, 2024, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order to Show Cause (Doc. 7) (“MOSC”) granting Plaintiff until October 23, 2024, in which to show good cause why Plaintiff's Complaint should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the MOSC. Plaintiff has failed to respond by the deadline.
The Court found in the MOSC that Plaintiff's claims relate to his pending state court criminal proceedings. See State v. Bennett, Case Nos. 23-CR-2043, 23-CR-2046, and 24-CR-975 (Johnson County District Court). The Court ordered Plaintiff to show good cause why the Court should not abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971).
The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to name a proper defendant. Because Plaintiff has neither made a specific claim against the State of Kansas nor shown any waiver of immunity from suit, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show good cause why this defendant should not be dismissed from this action. Plaintiff names Johnson County, Kansas, as the other defendant. The Court found in the MOSC that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege the existence of any custom or policy adopted by a municipal policymaker, or any facts supporting an inference that one exists. This is a requirement for asserting a § 1983 claim against a municipality, and without such allegations, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief against the municipality.
The Court's MOSC provides that “[f]ailure to respond by the deadline may result in dismissal of this matter without further notice.” (Doc. 7, at 9.) Plaintiff has failed to respond by the deadline and has failed to show good cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the Court's MOSC.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that this matter is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.