Bradley (ID 61833) v. Thompson

CourtDistrict Court, D. Kansas
DecidedAugust 16, 2019
Docket5:19-cv-03049
StatusUnknown

This text of Bradley (ID 61833) v. Thompson (Bradley (ID 61833) v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bradley (ID 61833) v. Thompson, (D. Kan. 2019).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

DARRYL BRADLEY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 19-3049-SAC

KIRK THOMPSON,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Bradley, a prisoner at the Winfield Correctional Facility in Winfield, Kansas, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the Kansas Offender Registration Act, K.S.A. 22-4901, et seq. (“KORA”). Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief finding KORA unconstitutional, unspecified injunctive relief, and monetary damages. On June 19, 2019, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 4)(“MOSC”) ordering Plaintiff to show cause by July 19, 2019, why this matter should not be dismissed due to the deficiencies set forth. The MOSC stated that if Plaintiff failed within the time allotted to file a response, this action could be dismissed without further notice. Plaintiff has not responded to the MOSC. As explained in the MOSC, Mr. Bradley’s complaint is subject to dismissal for two reasons. First, the complaint, while signed by Plaintiff, does not include any allegations related to him. The Court is therefore unable to determine whether Mr. Bradley has standing to bring this action, and the complaint violates Rule 8 (a). See Schaffer v. Clinton, 240 F.3d 878, 882 (10th Cir. 2001); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Second, the Heck doctrine requires the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint. Because a ruling that KORA is unconstitutional would demonstrate the invalidity of Plaintiff’s conviction for violating KORA and because Plaintiff has not shown that his conviction has already been invalidated, his claims appear to be barred by Heck. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,

487 (1994). For these reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: This 16th day of August, 2019, at Topeka, Kansas.

s/_Sam A. Crow_____ SAM A. CROW U.S. Senior District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Heck v. Humphrey
512 U.S. 477 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Schaffer v. Clinton
240 F.3d 878 (Tenth Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bradley (ID 61833) v. Thompson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-id-61833-v-thompson-ksd-2019.