Quinn v. Kansas, State of

District Court, D. Kansas·Decided July 18, 2025·No. 5:25-cv-03085·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

THOMAS QUINN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 25-3085-JWL

STATE OF KANSAS, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiffs bring this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Plaintiffs are: Thomas Quinn; Daniel Logsdon; Damerius McGee; Travis Layne; James Watkins; and Alonzo Lax, Jr. At the time of filing, all Plaintiffs were in custody at the Riley County Jail in Manhattan, Kansas (“RCJ”). The Court has since received return mail indicating that Plaintiff Alonzo Lax, Jr., is no longer housed at the RCJ and is now incarcerated at the El Dorado Correctional Facility. (Doc. 12.) On June 11, 2025, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order to Show Cause (Doc. 11) (“MOSC”) granting Plaintiffs until July 11, 2025, to show good cause why the Complaint should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the MOSC. The MOSC provides that “[f]ailure to respond by the deadline may result in dismissal of this case without further notice.” (Doc. 11, at 11.) None of the Plaintiffs have filed a response to the MOSC by the Court’s deadline. The Court found in the MOSC that the Court may be prohibited from hearing Plaintiffs’ claims regarding their state court proceedings under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). The Court also found that violation of a state statute is not grounds for relief under § 1983; the State of Kansas and its agencies are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; the state court judges are entitled to judicial immunity; the county prosecutors are entitled to prosecutorial immunity; and to the extent Plaintiffs seek to have their state criminal case dismissed such relief must be sought in a habeas corpus proceedings. Plaintiffs have failed to respond to the Court’s MOSC by the Court’s deadline and have failed to show good cause why the 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. Dated July 18, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas. S/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Quinn v. Kansas, State of, (D. Kan. 2025).

Quinn v. Kansas, State of (Quinn v. Kansas, State of) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Younger v. Harris
401 U.S. 37 (Supreme Court, 1971)