Aich v. Giligan

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JESSE AICH,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3231-JWL
DANIEL GILIGAN,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court granted
Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 	On October 28, 2025, the Court entered a
Memorandum and Order to Show Cause (Doc. 4) (“MOSC”) ordering Plaintiff to show good cause
why his Complaint should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the MOSC. This matter is
before the Court on Plaintiff’s response (Doc. 6). 1 Plaintiff’s factual allegations and the Court’s
screening standards are set forth in detail in the MOSC.
Plaintiff’s claims relate to his state court criminal proceedings, and he names the state court
judge as the sole defendant. The Court found in the MOSC that Plaintiff’s claims against the state
court judge should be dismissed on the basis of judicial immunity. 	A state judge is absolutely
immune from § 1983 liability except when the judge acts “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.”
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356–57 (1978) (articulating broad immunity rule that a “judge
will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously,
or was in excess of his authority . . . .”); Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th Cir. 1994).
Only actions taken outside a judge’s judicial capacity will deprive the judge of judicial immunity.
1 Plaintiff also filed an objection (Doc. 5) regarding the Court’s assessment of an initial partial filing fee. Because
this case is being dismissed, the Court will not be taking any action on Plaintiff’s objection.
Case 5:25-cv-03231-JWL Document 7 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Stump, 435 U.S. at 356–57. 	Plaintiff alleges no facts whatsoever to suggest that the defendant
judge acted outside of his judicial capacity.
The Court also found in the MOSC that to the extent Plaintiff’s claims relate to his state
criminal proceedings in Reno County, Kansas, the Court would be prohibited from hearing
Plaintiff’s claims regarding his state court proceedings under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45
(1971).
Plaintiff cites 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 245 in his request for relief and states that he would
like to have the judge “arrested and fined as well as monetary damages.” (Doc. 1, at 5.) The Court
found in the MOSC that §§ 242 and 245 are criminal statutes and Plaintiff does not have a private
right of action to enforce criminal laws. 	Further, the Court is not authorized to direct state or
federal prosecutorial authorities to bring a criminal case against the Defendant. 	See Maine v.
Taylor, 477 U.S. 131, 136 (1986) (“the United States and its attorneys have the sole power to
prosecute criminal cases in federal courts”); Lynn v. Cline, 2019 WL 2578241, at *2 (D. Kan.
2019) (“This Court cannot order the initiation of criminal charges, which is a decision within the
discretion of prosecuting attorneys.”) (citing Presley v. Presley, 102 F. App’x 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”)); State ex rel. Rome
v. Fountain, 678 P.2d 146, 148 (Kan. 1984) (“[A] private individual has no right to prosecute
another for crime and no right to control any criminal prosecution when one is instituted. Thus,
the philosophy of this state has always been that a criminal prosecution is a state affair and the
control of it is in the public prosecutor.”).
The Court ordered Plaintiff to show good cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed
for the reasons set forth in the MOSC. 	In his response, Plaintiff continues to assert arguments
Case 5:25-cv-03231-JWL Document 7 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 3

3
regarding his state court criminal proceedings. 	(Doc. 6, at 1–9.) 	Online records show that
Plaintiff’s criminal proceedings are ongoing. See State v. Aich, Case No. RN-2025-CR-000414
(District Court of Reno County, Kansas) (filed June 11, 2025).2 The docket reflects that the case
is currently “pending” 	with a preliminary hearing scheduled for December 15, 2025. 	Id.
Therefore, the Court is prohibited from hearing Plaintiff’s claims regarding his state court
proceedings under Younger.
Plaintiff has failed to respond to the deficiencies noted in the MOSC and has failed to show
good cause why this matter should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the MOSC.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that this matter is dismissed
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated December 2, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 The docket reflects that the judge assigned to the case is Daniel Gilligan. Plaintiff names the defendant in this case
as Daniel “Giligan.” See Doc. 1, at 1.
Case 5:25-cv-03231-JWL Document 7 Filed 12/02/25 Page 3 of 3