Wanjiku v. Johnson Cnty.
| Decision Date | 29 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 15-cv-02658-DDC-TJJ |
| Citation | 173 F.Supp.3d 1217 |
| Parties | Erick Gachuhi Wanjiku, Plaintiff, v. Johnson County, Kansas,Lenexa Police Department, and Steve Grigsby, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Erick Gachuhi Wanjiku, Tulsa, OK, pro se.
Cynthia C. Dunham, Olathe, KS, Peter C. Simonsen, City of Lenexa Legal Department, Lenexa, KS, for Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on defendants Lenexa Police Department and Detective Steve Grigsby's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 8) and defendant Johnson County, Kansas' Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process, Failure to State a Claim, and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 11). Plaintiff Erick Gachuhi Wanjiku, proceeding pro se , opposes both motions. See Docs. 13, 14. For reasons explained below, the Court grants defendants' motions and dismisses the case.
The Court takes the following facts from plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) and views them in the light most favorable to him. S.E.C. v. Shields , 744 F.3d 633, 640 (10th Cir.2014) (). When the Court considers a pro se litigant's pleadings, it construes them liberally and holds them to a “less stringent standard” than ones drafted by lawyers. Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991). But, the Court may not provide “additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff's behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico , 113 F.3d 1170, 1173–74 (10th Cir.1997) ; see also Hall , 935 F.2d at 1110 ( ).
Plaintiff brings this civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 alleging violations of his civil rights. Doc. 1 at 3. Specifically, he claims that Johnson County, Kansas detained him for a year without reason, the Lenexa Police Department arrested him on a false allegation, and Detective Grigsby “conspired with private citizens to alter and destroy evidence.” Doc. 1 at 3–4. Plaintiff seeks actual damages and punitive damages in an unspecified amount. Id. at 4. He previously presented these claims in another lawsuit, but the Court dismissed that case. See Doc. 1 at 5; Wanjiku v. Johnson Cty., Kansas , No. 14–2001–RDR, 2014 WL 821285, at *2 (D.Kan. Mar. 3, 2014) ; Wanjiku v. Johnson Cty., Kan. , No. 14–cv–02001–RDR–JPO, 2014 WL 2611454, at *2 (D.Kan. June 11, 2014). The Court addresses the facts alleged in, and the procedural history of the previous suit, below.
A district court can take judicial notice of its own decisions and records in a prior case involving the same parties without converting a motion to dismiss the later case into a motion for summary judgment. See Merswin v. Williams Cos., Inc. , 364 Fed.Appx. 438, 441 (10th Cir.2010) ; see also Tal v. Hogan , 453 F.3d 1244, 1264 n. 24 (10th Cir.2006) (). And the Court does so here.
Plaintiff previously presented nearly identical claims in 2014 in his Civil Complaintf filed in Wanjiku v. Johnson County, Kansas , Case No. 14-cv-02001-RDR-JPO (D. Kan. Jan. 3, 2014), ECF No. 1 (the “2014 Complaint”).2 In plaintiff's 2014 Complaint, he alleged that defendants “prosecuted, detained and destroyed evidence” that was crucial to proving his innocence and “destroyed and disposed” of his personal property. 2014 Complaint at 3. He also contended that “Detective Steve Gri[g]sby conspired with private citizens to destroy evidence, ... tampered with evidence ... and threatened [plaintiff's] friend so that he could testify against [plaintiff].” Id. at 8. Plaintiff sought monetary relief in excess of $20,000,000 and asked the Court to prosecute those who committed crimes against him. Id. at 4. He requested monetary damages because of the pain he and his family sustained, including: “mental anguish, lost wages, defamation of character and [l]ong term effects of being jailed.” Id. at 4. He also asserted that he had complained of prosecutorial misconduct “to the office of the disciplinary administrator who dismissed [his] allegations.” Id. at 5.
The Court dismissed plaintiff's claims in his 2014 lawsuit against defendant Lenexa Police Department for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court also dismissed plaintiff's claims against defendant Steve Grigsby without prejudice for insufficient service of process. See Wanjiku , 2014 WL 821285, at *2. And the Court dismissed plaintiff's claims against defendant Johnson County, Kansas without prejudice for insufficient service of process. See Wanjiku , 2014 WL 2611454, at *2.
Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (5), and (6).
Under Rule 12(b)(1), a defendant may move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Federal courts must have a statutory or constitutional basis to exercise jurisdiction.
Davenport v. Wal – Mart Stores, Inc. , No. 14–cv–2124–JAR–JPO, 2014 WL 3361729, at *1 (D.Kan. July 9, 2014). And, without jurisdiction, a court must dismiss the case. Id. Plaintiff bears the burden to establish that jurisdiction is proper and thus bears the burden to show why the Court should not dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. ; see also Kinney v. Blue Dot Servs. , 505 Fed.Appx. 812, 814 (10th Cir.2012) ().
Generally, a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss consists of either a facial attack or a factual attack. Davenport , 2014 WL 3361729, at *1. The Tenth Circuit has explained the difference between the two:
First, a facial attack on the complaint's allegations as to subject matter jurisdiction questions the sufficiency of the complaint. In reviewing a facial attack on the complaint, a district court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true. Id. Second, a party may go beyond allegations contained in the complaint and challenge the facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction depends. When reviewing a factual attack on subject matter jurisdiction, a district court may not presume the truthfulness of the complaint's factual allegations. A court has wide discretion to allow affidavits, other documents, and a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts under Rule 12(b)(1).
Holt v. United States , 46 F.3d 1000, 1002–03 (10th Cir.1995) (citations omitted).
Under Rule 12(b)(5), a defendant may move to dismiss for insufficient service of process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). Before a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the plaintiff must have served process validly under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Riddle v. Wichita Pub. Sch. , No. Civ.A. 04–1400–MBL, 2005 WL 1563444, at *1 (D.Kan. June 30, 2005) ; Oltremari v. Kan. Soc. & Rehab. Serv. , 871 F.Supp. 1331, 1348 (D.Kan.1994). Plaintiff bears the burden to prove valid service. Oltremari , 871 F.Supp. at 1349 ; see also Davenport , 2014 WL 3361729, at *2 (); Fisher v. Lynch , 531 F.Supp.2d 1253, 1260 (D.Kan.2008) ().
Rule 4(e) prescribes the appropriate methods for serving process on individuals located in the United States. It provides that an individual must be served by:
(1) following state law for serving a summons ... in the state where the district court is located or service is made; or (2) doing any of the following: (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally; (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or (C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). Rule 4(j)(2) prescribes the appropriate methods to serve a state or other unit of local government. A plaintiff must serve such a local governmental unit by:
(A) delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to its chief executive officer; or (B) serving a copy of each in the manner prescribed by that state's law for serving a summons or like process on such a defendant.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2). Thus, under Rule 4, plaintiff may serve defendants using the processes specified in Rule 4 or by processes recognized by Kansas state law. See Davenport , 2014 WL 3361729, at *2.
Kansas law authorizes a plaintiff to serve process by return receipt delivery, personal service, or residential service. See K.S.A. § 60–303(c) –(d). Service by return receipt delivery “is effected by certified mail ... to the party addressed, in each instance evidenced by a written or electronic receipt showing to whom [service...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coffman v. Hutchinson Cmty. Coll.
...a plaintiff must include a statement in his Complaint alleging that he has performed the required notice." Wanjiku v. Johnson County, 173 F. Supp. 3d 1217, 1236 (D. Kan. 2016) (noting that Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(c) provides that "it suffices to allege generally that all conditions precedent have......
-
Neighbors v. Kansas, Case No. 16-cv-04023-DDC-KGS
...are governed by the two-year statute of limitations found in section 60-513 of Kansas Statutes Annotated. Wanjiku v. Johnson Cty., 173 F. Supp. 3d 1217, 1232 (D. Kan. 2016) (§ 1985); Logan v. United States, 272 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1185 (D. Kan. 2003) (Bivens). But, federal law controls when B......
-
Saunders ex rel. R.S. v. USD 353 Wellington
...requirements are not met, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the municipality."); see also Wanjiku v. Johnson Cnty., Kan., 173 F. Supp. 3d 1217, 1236-37 (D. Kan. 2016) (dismissing plaintiff's tort claims against county under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisd......
- Coit v. Zavaras