Wagner (ID 2000144015) v. Kansas Department of Corrections et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
TYRON ELON WAGNER,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3247-JWL
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Plaintiff is
incarcerated at the Lansing Correctional Facility in Lansing, Kansas (“LCF”). The Court granted
Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 	On January 23, 2026, the Court entered a
Memorandum and Order (Doc. 14) (“M&O”): 1) dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against the Kansas
Department of Corrections (“KDOC”); 2) ordering Plaintiff to show good cause why his claims in
Count II should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim; and 3) finding that the proper
processing of Plaintiff’s claims in Counts I and III could not be achieved without additional
information from appropriate KDOC officials and ordering a Martinez Report on those claims. On
February 18, 2026, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims in
Count II. (Doc. 18.)
The M&O provides that “[o]nce the report has been received, the Court can properly screen
Plaintiff’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.” (Doc. 14, at 7.) The Martinez Report (Docs. 23,
24, 26) (the “Report”) has now been filed. This matter is before the Court for screening Counts I
and III. The Court’s screening standards are set forth in the M&O.
Case 5:25-cv-03247-JWB-JBW Document 30 Filed 07/21/26 Page 1 of 15

2
I. Nature of the Matter before the Court
Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that on March 9, 2025, several members of LCF’s Special
Operations and Response Team (“SORT”) directed Plaintiff to engage in unlawful conduct by
exploiting a regulation that requires inmates to obey any order, directive, or instruction given to
the inmate by any employee of the facility. (Doc. 9, at 2, 7.) Plaintiff alleges that as a result of
his actions, he received a disciplinary sanction and is required to spend a year in segregation where
he has suffered egregious injuries due to an unnecessary use of force. Id. at 2.
As Count I, Plaintiff alleges cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 3. Plaintiff was served
with a disciplinary report for battery on another inmate. Id. Plaintiff alleges that several members
of LCF’s SORT forced Plaintiff to engage in unlawful conduct by exploiting the regulation. Id. at
7. 	Plaintiff alleges that as the regulation stands, an inmate can be lawfully required to commit
unlawful acts. Id. at 8.
Plaintiff alleges that on March 9, 2025, Officer Anna Bright approached Plaintiff and
claimed that she needed assistance with an issue she was having with another inmate—Michael
Parker. 	Id. at 8. 	She claimed that Parker had been harassing her in an escalating manner and
instructed Plaintiff to address this behavior. Id. Because Plaintiff was uncertain of the validity of
Bright’s allegations and her subsequent solicitation of an intervention, Plaintiff spoke with
Defendant Tyrell Godwin about the situation. Id. Plaintiff claims that Godwin verified that the
allegations were true and gave Plaintiff and several of his associates a directive to “do something”
about Parker’s actions, as he had become “too disrespectful.” Id. Plaintiff and his associates then
spoke with Defendant Dalton Kinyon1 about it and Kinyon directly ordered them to make certain
1 Although Plaintiff refers to the officer as Dalton Kinyun, the Report and the officer’s affidavit show that his correct
name is Dalton Kinyon. See Doc. 23–23. The Court will refer to the defendant as Dalton Kinyon and will direct the
Clerk to correct his name on the docket.
Case 5:25-cv-03247-JWB-JBW Document 30 Filed 07/21/26 Page 2 of 15

3
that Parker “get[s] his ass beat,” or Kinyon would begin making the lives of Parker’s affiliates
difficult. Id. at 8–9.
Plaintiff alleges that K.A.R. 44-12-304 requires inmates to follow any order, directive, or
instruction given to them by an employee of the facility. Id. at 9. Plaintiff alleges that on March 9,
2025, “it is alleged that Michael Parker was assaulted in his cell.” Id. 	Later that evening, Plaintiff
was placed in segregation for his suspected involvement in the battery on Parker. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that he remains in segregation and that being ordered to bring physical
harm to his friend has been a traumatic experience causing him to suffer from nightmares and fear.
Id. Plaintiff alleges that he has attempted to commit suicide on several occasions. Id.
As Count III, Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to excessive force on September 12,
2025. Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges that a medical emergency was signaled for Plaintiff’s cell due to
his cellmate having suicidal thoughts and requesting to speak with a Behavioral Health Provider.
Id. at 11. Plaintiff claims that as the officer in charge of the unit was attempting to de-escalate the
crisis, Defendant Jerry Barton aggressively approached the cell and physically moved the officer
away from the cell door. Id. Plaintiff claims that Barton’s conduct was combative as he demanded
that Plaintiff and his cellmate “cuff up” or be pepper-sprayed Id. at 11–12. Plaintiff claims that
“[w]hile attempting to explain to Mr. Barton that his behavior was creating a hostile and volitive
environment, a chemical agent was deployed into the cell, incapacitating both the Plaintiff and his
cellmate.” Id. at 12.
Plaintiff claims that after his cellmate was immediately placed in handcuffs through the
opened “trayport” in the door, Plaintiff extended his right arm through the trayport but no attempt
was made to place his wrist in restraints. Id. Instead, Defendant Barton demanded that the cell
door be opened, at which time Plaintiff raised his palms and stated “I’m not resisting.” Id. Plaintiff
Case 5:25-cv-03247-JWB-JBW Document 30 Filed 07/21/26 Page 3 of 15

4
claims that Barton ignored Plaintiff’s surrender and “responders” slammed Plaintiff to the ground
where his arms and legs were pinned down. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Barton then began striking
Plaintiff in the face and head with a closed fist while Plaintiff was securely restrained and
defenseless. Id. Plaintiff claims that he sustained injuries, including lacerations above and below
his left eye, busted capillaries in his left eye, and inflammation on his face and head. Id. Plaintiff
alleges that the severity of his injuries required emergency medical treatment at Saint John
Pavillion in Leavenworth, Kansas. 	Id. at 12–13. 	Plaintiff claims that he has an ongoing
impairment to the vision in his left eye. Id. at 13.
The remaining defendants are: Jerry Barton, SORT at LCF; Anna Bright, LCF employee;
Tyrell Godwin, SORT at LCF; and Dalton Kinyon, SORT at LCF. 	For relief, Plaintiff seeks
$10,000,000 in compensatory damages; $10,000,000 in punitive damages; and injunctive relief in
the form of an order requiring a change to K.A.R. 44-12-304 indicating that an inmate has no legal
obligation to follow unlawful orders.2 Id. at 5, 13.
II. The Report
A. Count I:
The Report provides that on March 9, 2025, SORT/SST Officers Daniel Boone, Anna
Bright, Dalton Kinyon, and August Dillard were all working at LCF. 	(Doc. 23, at 8) (citing
Exhs. 20, 21). After resident Parker made a “thumbs-up” gesture about six inches from Officer
Anna Bright’s face, Plaintiff and another resident (Eric Williams) spoke with Bright about the
gesture and about how Parker had been behaving in this manner toward Bright at an increasing
2 	The Court previously held that Plaintiff’s claims for money damages against KDOC officials in their official
capacities are subject to dismissal. See Doc. 14, at 13 (finding that the Eleventh Amendment bars claims for money
damages against state officers in their official capacities). The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to allege a physical
injury for his claims in Count I and he must show a physical injury for each claim in order to avoid the bar in 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(e).
Case 5:25-cv-03247-JWB-JBW Document 30 Filed 07/21/26 Page 4 of 15

5
rate. Id. Bright states in her affidavit that she did not order, request, direct, or command Plaintiff
or Williams to attack or harm Parker. Id. (citing Affidavit of Anna Bright, Exh. 223 , at ¶ 11). The
Report states that Plaintiff corroborated this in his written appeal of his Disciplinary Report
Number 5419, where he states that Bright did not give him an order. Id. (citing Doc. 1, Doc. 11,
and Exh. 3).
Similarly, CO I Dillard recalled residents Danny Williams, Zachary Smith, and another
resident (whose name he could not recall), also approached him and asked about the interaction
between Ms. Bright and Mr. Parker. Id. at 8–9 (citing Affidavit of August Dillard, Exh. 254 , at
¶¶ 11, 12). These residents were told of the ‘thumbs-up’ interaction he observed earlier that day.
Id. at 9 (citing Exh. 25, at ¶¶ 11, 12). CO I Dillard also states that he did not give any order to “do
something” about Mr. Parker or “beat his ass.” Id. CO I Kinyon recalls Plaintiff and residents
Williams and Smith approached him on March 9, 2025, asking for information regarding
Mr. Parker and Ms. Bright and why a search of Mr. Parker’s cell took place back in February 2025.
Id. (citing Affidavit of Dalton Kinyon, Exh. 23, at ¶¶ 9–11). CO I Kinyon directly told them about
Mr. Parker’s behavioral issues and how other correction measures (like talking it out) were not
working in stopping Mr. Parker’s behavior. 	Id. 	CO I Kinyon states that he did not give any order
or directive for the residents to attack, batter, injure, or “beat” Mr. Parker and did not believe his
conversation with them gave them that kind of message. Id.
Although CO I Godwin was verified as working on March 9, 2025, from 0436 hours to
1427 hours, he does not have any recollection of interacting with, witnessing, or participating in
conversations with Plaintiff, and does not recall giving Plaintiff any order, directive, or task to
3 Although the Report refers to Exhibit 24 as Anna Bright’s affidavit, her affidavit is located at Exhibit 22, Doc. 23–
22.
4 Although the Report refers to Dillard’s affidavit as Exhibit 34, it is located at Exhibit 25. See Doc. 23–25.
Case 5:25-cv-03247-JWB-JBW Document 30 Filed 07/21/26 Page 5 of 15

6
batter resident Parker. Id. (citing Exh. 24, ¶¶ 6–7). 	The Report provides that “[n]either EAI
investigation file LCF-SM-25-2 or LCF-BA-25-2 mention CO I Godwin and it appears that CO I
Godwin may be mistaken for a different SORT Officer.” Id.
Plaintiff was placed in restrictive housing pending an investigation for the battery of
resident Parker. 	Id. at 9–10. 	Plaintiff and other residents (Eric Williams, Danny Williams,
Chicago Elias, and David Benjamin) were found guilty of their disciplinary reports for the battery
of resident Parker. 	Id. at 11 (citing Exhs. 4–7). 	None of the disciplinary reports for the other
residents involved mention having been ordered by LCF officers to conduct the battery. Id.
The Report provides that:
There is also evidence that officers are to sign a code of ethics that
would prohibit them from such conduct under their authority as an
officer. Internal Management Policy and Procedures 02-118D –
Employee & Volunteer Rules of Conduct and Undue Familiarity
requires officers be held to the standing of only obeying lawful
orders given and they are expected to follow Kansas laws and
regulations, which would include officers being expected to not
coheres [sic] a resident into the complained of activity. IMPP 02-
118D also specifically says that KDOC employees shall not
encourage nor participate in behaviors like battery. (Exhibit 16-
IMPP 02-118D(D)(3)(c). 5
Id. at 10.
B. Count III:
The Report includes video footage of the September 12, 2025 incident. The video footage
is contained in Exhibit 10 to the Report, which is filed under seal and conventionally. (Doc. 29.)
Based on the videos, the event goes from 8:35 pm to 8:40 pm. The Report summarizes the video
as showing that at 8:35 pm, CS I Hillis6 and another officer stopped in front of cell 119 and gesture
5 Although the Report cites to Exhibit 16, IMPP 02-118D is contained in Exhibit 15. The cite also appears to relate
to Section IV(B)(3)(c), not (D)(3)(c).
6 The Report does not include an affidavit from Officer Hillis.
Case 5:25-cv-03247-JWB-JBW Document 30 Filed 07/21/26 Page 6 of 15

7
at the cell window which appears to have a covering blocking the view to the inside of the cell and
appears to have been placed on the interior cell side of the window by the cell’s inhabitants.
(Doc. 23, at 4.) 	Hillis appears to be talking to the residents inside of the cell and the officers
continue to stay by the cell while Hillis appears to utilize her radio to trigger an alarm for
assistance. 	Id. 	CO I Walter-Williams then walks into frame and appears to be communicating
with Hillis and moving towards the cell door. Id. As Walter-Williams approaches the cell door
food port and begins to open it, another officer comes into view appearing to be responding to the
alarm. Id. at 5. The food port is successfully opened by Walter-Williams, and a single arm quickly
comes out of the food port (the arm is identified by staff as Plaintiff’s) opening towards the
direction of Walter-Williams causing him to lean back from the opening. Id. 	Officers then take
Plaintiff’s arm and appear to struggle to get it back into the cell. More officers arrive on scene,
including Lt. Cobb, and stand to the side. The Report notes that Lt. Cobb is standing under the
stairs and can be identified by his mustache, and CO I Barton does not appear in the video
recording at this point. Id.
“CO I Walter-Williams appears to attempt to secure the food port but is unable to do so as
the single arm appears to take the food port hostage.” 	Id. 	Walter-Williams then can be seen
spraying chemical agents into the food port. Id. “Plaintiff’s arm does not move from the food port
but does motion with his middle finger in an obscene gesture directed at officers, appearing to be
refusing to cooperate and continuing to keep the foot port from being secured.” Id. Plaintiff then
withdraws his arm from the food port and CS I Hillis appears able to close the food part and officers
appear to be holding it closed. Id. She can be seen pressing her ear to the door and appears to be
trying to hear something from the occupants of the cell and then she motions to disperse some of
the officers from the door and then re-opens the food port. 	Id. at 6. 	Hillis then appears to be
Case 5:25-cv-03247-JWB-JBW Document 30 Filed 07/21/26 Page 7 of 15

8
talking with the residents inside the cell. Id.
The video footage shows CO I Barton entering A6 building and approaching cell 119 at
8:38PM. Id. (noting that he is wearing a black SORT t-shirt, black pants, black shoes, glasses and
has facial hair and tattoos on his arm). “At the same time as CO I Barton enters the cell[] the pink
colored portion of the cell window covering is removed by on [sic] of the cell occupants leaving
some of the cell window covered.” Id. Barton and other correctional officers are standing at the
cell side and appearing to be having a conversation with the residents inside of the cell. Id. “This
continues, with CS I Hillis appearing to be the lead person communicating with the residents.” Id.
“Again, one of the cell’s resident’s hands appears (identified by LCF officers as Plaintiff) at the
entrance of the food port of the cell.” Id. “This hand is self-identified by Plaintiff in the Complaint
and well as having been identified by the officers.” Id. “CO I Barton then steps forward, appears
to be looking at the hand and cell window and then pulls out purple gloves and starts to put those
on his hand.” Id. Hillis pulls out restraints and bends towards the opening of the food port. 	Id.
Hillis puts restraints on resident Wilber while Barton and others are putting on gloves. Id.
at 7. 	Barton also gives Hillis a pair of gloves and she appears to be speaking with the residents of
the cell as she is putting on the gloves. Id. CO I Pittman and Walter-Williams are standing behind
Barton and Hillis. Id. Barton is then talking with one of the residents and looking directly into
the now partially cleared cell window. 	Id. 	(noting that because resident Wilber is already
restrained he would have been talking with Plaintiff who briefly can be seen pointing in the
window with his hand in the food port). 	All six of the officers (Hillis, CO I Acevedo, Walter-
Williams, CO I Pittman, and CO I Pennington) line up and then quickly go into the cell.7 Id.
7 Although the Report suggests that Officer Hillis was the first to enter Plaintiff’s cell, the video reflects that Officer
Barton entered the cell first. See Doc. 23, at 7 (“All six lined up officers (in approximate order of entry appears to
have been done by: CS I Hillis, CO I Barton, CO I Acevedo[,] CO I Walter-Williams, CO I Pittman, and CO I
Pennington.)”).
Case 5:25-cv-03247-JWB-JBW Document 30 Filed 07/21/26 Page 8 of 15

9
Officers remove resident Wilber from the cell first and then resident Wagner. Id. Barton
assists in removing resident Wilber first and then goes back into the cell for a few seconds and
assists in bringing out Wagner. Id. The Report provides that “[o]verall, the video footage in total
shows that CO I Barton did not manipulate the closure of the food port or close Plaintiff’s hand in
the food port contrary to Plaintiff’s claims in the Complaint, similarly CO I Barton is not seen
deploying any chemical agents into the cell.” Id.
Officer Barton states in his affidavit that he did not use excessive force against Plaintiff,
and that the injuries were not caused by him. Id. at 11 (citing Affidavit of Jerry Barton, Exh. 26,
at ¶ 20). 	The Report provides that “Plaintiff did present to the facility clinic on September 12,
2025, for injuries to his wrist and face at 9:22PM . . . [and] Plaintiff was sent out to outside medical
care at St. John Hospital for the lacerations above and below his left eye at 3:46AM on
September 13, 2025.” Id. (citing Exh. 2, at 169–76).
III. DISCUSSION
1. Count I: Cruel and Unusual Punishment
A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two requirements are met. Farmer
v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 	“First, the deprivation alleged must be, objectively,
‘sufficiently serious.’” 	Id. 	To satisfy the objective component, a prisoner must allege facts
showing he or she is “incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id.;
Martinez v. Garden, 430 F.3d 1302, 1304 (10th Cir. 2005).
The Eighth Amendment requires prison and jail officials to provide humane conditions of
confinement guided by “contemporary standards of decency.” 	Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
103 (1976). 	The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the Constitution “‘does not mandate
comfortable prisons,’ and only those deprivations denying ‘the minimal civilized measure of life’s
Case 5:25-cv-03247-JWB-JBW Document 30 Filed 07/21/26 Page 9 of 15

10
necessities’ are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation.” Wilson
v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991) (internal citations omitted). Indeed, prison conditions may be
“restrictive and even harsh.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). “Under the Eighth
Amendment, (prison) officials must provide humane conditions of confinement by ensuring
inmates receive the basic necessities of adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care and by
taking reasonable measures to guarantee the inmates’ safety.” McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287,
1291 (10th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).
The second requirement for an Eighth Amendment violation “follows from the principle
that ‘only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain implicates the Eighth Amendment.’”
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Prison officials must have a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,” and
in prison-conditions cases that state of mind is “deliberate indifference” to inmate health or safety.
Id. “[T]he official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a
substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” 	Id. at 837. 	“The
Eighth Amendment does not outlaw cruel and unusual ‘conditions’; it outlaws cruel and unusual
‘punishments.’” Id. It is not enough to establish that the official should have known of the risk of
harm. Id.
Plaintiff alleges in Count I that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment when he
was forced by regulation to obey an order to harm a fellow inmate. Plaintiff alleges that as the
regulation stands, an inmate can be required to commit unlawful acts. Plaintiff alleges that he was
disciplined for battery after complying with the order.
Anna Bright states in her affidavit that she was working alongside CO I Dillard when
Parker did the thumbs-up gesture about six inches from her face. (Doc. 23–22, at ¶¶ 6, 7.) Then,
Case 5:25-cv-03247-JWB-JBW Document 30 Filed 07/21/26 Page 10 of 15

11
resident Eric Williams was going through the lunch line and she asked Williams who Mr. Parker
ran with “meaning which gang he is part of, if he was part of one.” Id. at ¶ 8. She declares that:
Mr. Williams was not familiar with him and asked me what
was going on. 	I explained who Mr. Parker was and the negative
actions he exhibited. I was told Mr. Parker runs with Mr. Williams’
group and then he went and got Mr. Wagner to listen to me about
the negative interactions I had been having with Mr. Parker. I did
not give any orders or directives to harm Mr. Parker or have any of
the people in Mr. Williams’ group harm Mr. Parker.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Wagner then left, and I continued with
my duties. Shortly after and unprompted, Mr. Williams along with
Mr. Wagner, approached me and said that Mr. Parker had denied
any negative interactions with me. I simply explained to them that
the behavior has been happening, and others have seen it happen
today with the “thumbs-up” in my face. 	They then asked if they
could talk with CO I Dillard.
I was told the residents then went and asked CO I Dillard if
the “thumbs-up” incident occurred. Chow then finished up and the
residents went on their way, and I went to work at the B-block yard.
I did not directly or indirectly tell, command, or otherwise
order Mr. Wagner to attack or harm Mr. Parker. I had only asked if
a conversation could be had with Mr. Parker from his peers. 	My
only intentions from this question was to have the negative
interactions stop, not for Mr. Parker to be injured.
Shortly later, unsolicited, Mr. Williams and Mr. Wagner
approached me again and told me not to come to them again.
I was told later by other correctional staff that Mr. Parker
was attacked by other residents (including Mr. Wagner) later that
day.
Id. at ¶¶ 8–13 (internal paragraph numbers omitted).
The Report creates a factual dispute with Plaintiff’s allegations in his Complaint. 	The
Martinez report developed as a means “to ascertain whether there is a factual as well as a legal
basis for [a] prisoner’s claims.” Gee v. Estes, 829 F.2d 1005, 1007 (10th Cir. 1987). “Courts may
use a Martinez Report to clarify the complaint’s factual allegations and assess their frivolity.”
Martin v. v. Schnurr, 2026 WL 1194984, at *4 (10th Cir. 2026). However, the Report may not
be used “to resolve . . . a [bona fide factual] dispute[.]” Id. (citation omitted). Although the Report
Case 5:25-cv-03247-JWB-JBW Document 30 Filed 07/21/26 Page 11 of 15

12
states that officers did not direct Plaintiff to harm Parker, Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that
they did, thus creating a factual dispute. This factual dispute cannot be resolved at this stage and
Count I passes screening. Although the Report suggests that one of the officers in Count I may
have been misidentified by Plaintiff, this misidentification could be cured through amendment.
2. Count III: Excessive Force
“[W]henever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation
of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was
applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to
cause harm.” 	Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6–7 (1992) (citation omitted). 	“The Eighth
Amendment’s 	prohibition 	of 	‘cruel 	and 	unusual’ 	punishments 	necessarily 	excludes 	from
constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not
of a sort ‘repugnant to the conscience of mankind.’” Id. at 9–10.
Plaintiff must prove both an objective component and subjective component to succeed on
an excessive force claim. Smith v. Cochran, 339 F.3d 1205, 1212 (10th Cir. 2003). To establish
the objective component, Plaintiff must show that “the alleged wrongdoing was objectively
harmful enough to establish a constitutional violation.” Id.
To establish the subjective component, Plaintiff must show that Defendants “act[ed] with
a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Cochran, 339 F.3d at 1212 (citation omitted). “In order to
establish such a claim, a prisoner must demonstrate that the defendant officials engaged in the
‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’ ” Reed v. Smith, 1999 WL 345492, at *4 (10th Cir.
1999) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to excessive force by Defendant Barton on
September 12, 2025, when Barton punched Plaintiff in the face and head while Plaintiff was
Case 5:25-cv-03247-JWB-JBW Document 30 Filed 07/21/26 Page 12 of 15

13
restrained. 	In the Report, Officer Barton declares that there were six officers in the cell with
Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s cellmate, he did not slam Plaintiff to the ground or strike Plaintiff in the
face or head, “and it is not reasonable to assume [he] would be able to strike Mr. Wagner
considering there was such limited space in the cell due to all the people in the room.” (Doc. 23–
26, at ¶ 20.) 	Officer Barton states that Plaintiff’s face was injured prior to Barton’s arrival on
scene. Id.
Correctional Officer Dominick Walter-Williams provided an affidavit that declares that he
was the first officer to arrive at the cell in response to the alarm called, and more officers arrived
shortly after him. (Doc. 23–35, at ¶ 10.) He states that:
Upon my arrival, I was notified by the officer in charge (OIC) of the
unit, CSI Hillis, that residents in A4-119 were making statements of
“suicidal thoughts’ and observed a covering of the resident’s cell
window from the inside of the cell. Covering and/or impairing the
visibility of a cell is a serious safety and security issue, especially if
the resident is experiencing suicidal thoughts and a visual cannot be
made to ensure they are safe.
I opened the food port to the cell and upon opening it, resident
Wagner attempted to grab my person by reaching a single arm
through the opened food port. 	I pulled out a canister of chemical
agents due to the aggressive and uncooperative behavior resident
Wagner had at that moment. I believe the resident that attempted to
grab my person was resident Wagner based on his appearance and
tattoos and my knowledge of what resident Wagner commonly
looks like. I and other officers attempted to close the food port, but
resident Wagner was blocking it with his arm so we eventually had
to leave it open for a short period.
Shortly thereafter, resident Wilber was compliant and was placed in
restraints with no issue. 	After being placed into his restraints, he
backed away from the cell door and sat on the bottom bunk.
Resident Wagner, however, continued to refuse direct orders to
properly allow officers to restrain him and appeared determined to
continue to self-harm and refuse orders to allow restraints to be
placed on him.
I and other SORT officers then made a reactive entry into the cell
after due to self-harming was observed by the SORT officers. Half
of the group went further into the cell to escort Wilber out of the
cell. My half of the group had to restrain resident Wagner to prevent
Case 5:25-cv-03247-JWB-JBW Document 30 Filed 07/21/26 Page 13 of 15

14
any further injury to himself or staff to the best of our abilities and
training. First resident Wagner was placed against the wall and then
had to be placed onto the ground to gain compliance as he continued
to refuse to cooperate with staff. His uncooperating was brief after
he was placed onto the ground and we were able to fully restrain him
so he could be removed from the cell and taken to the clinic.
I did not observe Officer Barton hit, strike, or inflict injury to
resident Wagner while we were in the cell. It is my belief that the
injuries resident Wagner sustained occurred prior to staff entry into
the cell and was inflicted upon himself by banging his head/face
against the wall and/or door of the cell. Prior to entry I could hear a
resident hitting himself against his surroundings.
I am aware that Mr. Wagner was taken out of LCF via a state vehicle
for sutures on his face.
Id. at ¶¶ 11–17 (internal paragraph numbers omitted).
The Report indicates that Plaintiff’s injuries on September 12, 2025, were caused by self-
harm, and not by Officer Barton. Plaintiff acknowledges in his Complaint that he has attempted
to commit suicide on several occasion, claiming that being ordered to bring physical harm to his
friend and the resulting placement in segregation has been a traumatic experience causing him to
suffer from nightmares and fear. 	Although Plaintiff’s medical records reflect a history of self-
harm,8 his medical record for September 12, 2025, reflects that he reported “that SORT came in
and beat him up.” (Doc. 26–2, at 171.) 	At a follow-up visit on September 23, 2025, he stated that
“he was punched in the face.” Id. at 186. The videos included in the Report show what happened
outside of Plaintiff’s cell, but they do not capture what happened after the officers entered
Plaintiff’s cell. The camera’s view is blocked by the cell door.
The Report also creates a factual dispute as to Count III. Therefore, the Court finds that
8 Plaintiff’s medical records show that an alarm was called on July 17, 2025—two months before the incident—“due
to resident hitting head on wall, self-harm.” (Doc. 26–2, at 37.) Plaintiff had a nurse visit on August 4, 2025, due to
him “stating to officers he was having thoughts of harming self.” Id. at 84–85. The medical record states that Plaintiff
began to cut his wrist and officers were able to get into his cell and stop him, and he was placed on crisis level 3. Id.
at 85–86. On August 22, 2025, BHP was called by nursing due to Plaintiff “tying a rope around his bed and the other
end around his neck” and jumping off the bed. Id. at 137.
Case 5:25-cv-03247-JWB-JBW Document 30 Filed 07/21/26 Page 14 of 15

15
Plaintiff’s claim in Counts III also survives screening.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to correct the defendant’s
name to Dalton Kinyon.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims in Counts I and III survive screening.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall have until September 21, 2026, to
answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated July 21, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-03247-JWB-JBW Document 30 Filed 07/21/26 Page 15 of 15