West v. United States et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
RONALD WEST,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 24-3233-JWL
UNITED STATES, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, brings this pro se civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Hazelton-FCI in Bruceton Mills, West Virginia. The Court
granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On January 24, 2025, the Court entered a
Memorandum and Order to Show Cause (Doc. 8) (“MOSC”), ordering Plaintiff to show good
cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the MOSC. 	The
Court reviewed Plaintiff’s response (Doc. 15), and on February 28, 2025, entered a Memorandum
and Order (Doc. 18) dismissing this matter for failure to state a claim. 	On April 29, 2025, the
Court entered a Memorandum and Order (Doc. 26) denying Plaintiff’s motion to reopen this case.
On May 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 27). The Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed this Court’s decision, and the mandate issued on November 10, 2025 (Doc. 32).
On November 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 33). 	In his
motion, Plaintiff acknowledges that he received the Tenth Circuit’s mandate, but argues that “with
the issuance of the letter, jurisdiction was transferred back to the Lower Court.” (Doc. 33, at 1.)
Plaintiff then asks this Court to appoint him counsel, arguing that he is unable to afford counsel
Case 5:24-cv-03233-JWL Document 34 Filed 11/25/25 Page 1 of 3

2
and that the issues involved in the case are complex. Id. at 2. Plaintiff then argues the merits of
his claims. Id. at 3–4.
The Court understands Plaintiff’s confusion, because the letter sent with the mandate states
that “[w]ith the issuance of this letter, jurisdiction is transferred back to the lower court.”
(Doc. 32–1.) This statement merely reflects that the appeal process has concluded. This case was
not remanded to this Court for further proceedings. The Tenth Circuit’s Order and Judgment states
that:
The district court directed West to show cause as to why his
complaint 	should 	not 	be 	dismissed 	for 	inadequate 	pleading.
Reviewing West’s response, the court held that he failed to state a
claim and dismissed the case. It also denied West’s two post-
judgment motions seeking relief. West appeals the court’s dismissal
of the civil action, as well as denial of his post-judgment motions.
Exercising 	jurisdiction 	under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1291, 	we
AFFIRM. West has not satisfied the necessary pleading standards.
(Doc. 32, at 1–2.) The Tenth Circuit noted that this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s case for failure to
state a claim. Id. at 4. The Tenth Circuit found that “like the district court, we conclude that these
arguments cannot support a claim for relief, even when liberally construed.” Id. at 6. The Tenth
Circuit also held that while Plaintiff requested that the case be remanded to have the BOP settle
his claims, “even if his complaint were meritorious, a court cannot order a party to settle a case.
That decision is up to the parties.” Id. at 6–7. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit affirmed this Court’s
dismissal. Id. at 7.
This case was dismissed and the Tenth Circuit affirmed that dismissal on appeal.
Therefore, this case remains closed and Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied
as moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 33) is denied as moot.
Case 5:24-cv-03233-JWL Document 34 Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated November 25, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:24-cv-03233-JWL Document 34 Filed 11/25/25 Page 3 of 3