Jenkins (ID 2000077939) v. Hasenbank et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ROBERT TRAVIS JENKINS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 26-3013-JWL
RUSSEL WAYNE HASENBANK,
et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed this pro se action on January 21, 2026. 	Plaintiff is incarcerated at the
Hutchinson Correctional Facility in Hutchinson, Kansas. The Court issued a Notice of Deficiency
(Doc. 2) because Plaintiff’s Complaint was not on the Court-approved form and Plaintiff failed to
either pay the filing fee or submit a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 	The Court
granted Plaintiff until February 20, 2026, to cure the deficiencies. This matter is before the Court
on Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 3) seeking an “Order of Praecipe.” Based on Plaintiff’s motion, it is
unclear whether Plaintiff intended to file a civil rights complaint, a petition for writ of habeas
corpus, or a K.S.A. § 60-1501 action.
Plaintiff initiated this case by filing a document entitled “K.S.A. 60-1501 Civil Rights
Complaints.” (Doc. 1, at 1.) In the Complaint, Plaintiff refers to himself as “the Petitioner” and
indicates that he is wrongly convicted and “seek[ing] relief from this wrongful conviction by
immediate release.” 	Id. 	He also states that he is seeking $300,000,000 in damages, and other
punitive damages for pain and suffering. 	Id. 	Plaintiff states that his claims relate to Seward
County Case No. 2015-CR-000528. Id. He alleges that court proceedings in Seward County were
fraudulent and fake. Id. at 4.
Case 5:26-cv-03013-JWL Document 4 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Plaintiff then makes claims regarding his conditions of confinement, alleging that he was
transferred to the Lansing Correctional Facility as part of a conspiracy to alter his transcripts. Id.
at 2. 	Plaintiff believes that the Kansas Department of Corrections is secretly pursuing funds
through the prosecutor and seeking to murder Plaintiff when the opportunity presents itself. Id.
He also believes he was denied security in an altercation that he broke up on November 29, 2024.
Id. 	Plaintiff claims that this “ended in the death of his sister” in Georgia by inmates that retaliated
against Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he was placed in segregation, labeled a snitch, and his
food was contaminated. Id. Plaintiff alleges that this was all done in an attempt to civilly commit
him. Id. Plaintiff also makes claims regarding a bug that he alleges was implanted in his ear and
the loss of some of his property. Id. at 3–4.
Plaintiff has filed a motion titled “Order of Praecipe K.S.A. 60-1501.” (Doc. 3.) He refers
to himself as the “Petitioner” and asks the Court to “issue the writ in the above and foregoing
matter.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff then states that “[t]he KSA 60-1501 is the writ of habeas corpus, and a
1983 civil rights complaint was not issued under the filing, which a court cannot do lawfully, which
means that KDOC is unlawfully capturing and doctoring documents of Jenkins in 21-CV-85; 25-
CV-03119-JWL; 25-CV-0376-JWL, and now this matter.” Id. 	Plaintiff makes claims about the
murder of his family members and claims that fumes are being introduced into his cell, causing
his fingernails to grow in a rippling effect. Id. Plaintiff asks the Court to “issue the writ.” Id.
Plaintiff attaches to his motion a printout of the docket in this case. Id. at 2. For the cause
of action on the docket, he has crossed out “42: 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights” and handwritten
“K.S.A. 60-1501 (Requested Reno Court Clerk: Kansas Court of Appeal to issue writ of Praecipe,
denied.” Id. 	Plaintiff then claims that the language the state uses to charge people paraphrases
the statute. Id. at 3. Plaintiff then attaches the first page of the Court-approved form this Court
Case 5:26-cv-03013-JWL Document 4 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 5

3
sent to Plaintiff with the Court’s Notice of Deficiency. Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges that it is an “illegal
document doctored by KDOC.” Id.
The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion, but will grant him the opportunity to clarify his claims.
It is unclear whether Plaintiff is seeking to pursue a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, or a K.S.A. § 60-1501 action.
Therefore, the Court is ordering Plaintiff to clarify what action he is pursuing.
The appropriate avenue for a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court to
assert in federal court that he “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States” is 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 	To the extent Plaintiff challenges the validity of his
sentence in his state criminal case, his federal claim must be presented in habeas corpus. 	“[A]
§ 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to
the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973) (emphasis added). When the legality of a confinement is challenged so
that the remedy would be release or a speedier release, the case must be filed as a habeas corpus
proceeding rather than under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the plaintiff must comply with the exhaustion
of state court remedies requirement. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 482 (1994); see also Montez
v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 866 (10th Cir. 2000) (exhaustion of state court remedies is required by
prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief); see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) (requiring exhaustion of
available state court remedies). “Before a federal court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner,
the prisoner must exhaust his remedies in state court. In other words, the state prisoner must give
the state courts an opportunity to act on his claims before he presents those claims to a federal
court in a habeas petition.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999); see Woodford v.
Case 5:26-cv-03013-JWL Document 4 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 92 (2006); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518–19 (1982); Therefore, any claim
challenging his state sentence is not cognizable in a § 1983 action.
Plaintiff should notify the Court if he intended to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus
under § 2254. Under Local Rule 9.1(a), a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 must be filed on an official form. See D. Kan. Rule 9.1(a). 	However, the “AEDPA places
strict limitations on second or successive claims.” 	See Davis v. Roberts, 425 F.3d 830, 834-35
(10th Cir. 2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), 2255). Plaintiff previously filed a § 2254 petition in
this Court challenging his 2016 Seward County conviction. See Jenkins v. Schnurr, Case No. 25-
3076-JWL (D. Kan.). 	On January 14, 2026, the Court dismissed the matter with prejudice as
untimely. Id. at Doc. 39.
If Plaintiff is seeking to challenge his conditions of confinement, he should submit his
complaint on the Court-approved form that the Court sent to him. 	He must also either pay the
$405 filing fee or submit a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
To the extent Plaintiff includes claims that have been previously dismissed by this Court,
those claims would be subject to dismissal as frivolous. 	Plaintiff made similar claims in Case
No. 25-3119 regarding the alleged bug implanted in his ear and the contamination of his food. See
Jenkins v. Aramark Food Servs., Case No. 25-3119-JWL (D. Kan.) In that case the Court found
that Plaintiff’s claims about a bug being implanted in his ear in 2011 are frivolous and untimely,
and his claims regarding his food failed to allege a constitutional violation. Id. at Doc. 9. That
case was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Id. 	“Repetitious litigation of virtually identical
causes of action may be dismissed under § 1915 as frivolous or malicious.” Winkle v. Hammond,
601 F. App’x 754, 754–55 (10th Cir. 2015) (quoting McWilliams v. State of Colo., 121 F.3d 573,
574 (10th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)); see also Davis v. Bacon,
Case 5:26-cv-03013-JWL Document 4 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 5

5
234 F. App’x 872, 874 (10th Cir. 2007) (dismissing as frivolous a complaint that “substantially
mirrors” a prior complaint that was dismissed).
If Plaintiff is seeking to file a K.S.A. § 60-1501 action, that is a state action that must be
filed in state court. Plaintiff should notify the Court if he intended to file this action in state court.
Plaintiff should either submit his complaint on the Court-approved form if he is seeking to
file a § 1983 action, or notify the Court that he is seeking to submit a petition for writ of habeas
corpus under § 2254. Plaintiff should submit his complaint on the Court-approved form and his
filing fee or motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis by the February 20, 2026 deadline set
forth in the Court’s Notice of Deficiency. If Plaintiff did not intend to pursue a § 1983 action, he
should so notify the Court by this same deadline.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 3) is
denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until February 20, 2026, to either:
1) submit his § 1983 Complaint on the Court-approved form and submit the $405 filing fee or a
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; or 2) notify the Court that he intended to file a
petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or a state court petition under K.S.A. § 60-1501.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated February 4, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:26-cv-03013-JWL Document 4 Filed 02/04/26 Page 5 of 5