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. 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”) ordering Plaintiff to show good cause why his claims in Count II should
not be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and finding that the proper processing of Plaintiff’s
claims in Counts I and III cannot be achieved without additional information from appropriate
Kansas Department of Corrections (“KDOC”) officials. 	The Court ordered KDOC officials to
submit a Martinez Report. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 16) and
Motion to Correct the Docket (Doc. 17).
In his response, Plaintiff expresses concern regarding delays in his attempts to submit his
$4.00 initial partial filing fee. (Doc. 16, at 1–2.) The Court advises Plaintiff that it received his
$4.00 initial partial filing fee on January 30, 2026.
Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Correct the Docket (Doc. 17). Plaintiff’s first concern
is that the docket in this case does not reflect that he requested a jury trial. (Doc. 17, at 1.) The
Clerk has now corrected the docket to reflect Plaintiff’s jury trial demand.
Case 5:25-cv-03247-JWB-JBW Document 18 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Plaintiff also seeks to clarify that he is suing Defendants in both their individual and official
capacities. Id. at 2. The Court found in the M&O that Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to
any official capacity claims for money damages against a KDOC defendant. (Doc. 14, at 13.) The
Court will instruct the Clerk to update the docket to reflect that Plaintiff is suing Defendants in
their individual and official capacities.
Lastly, Plaintiff states that he agrees with the Court that his claims in Count II should be
dismissed for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 17, at 2.) Plaintiff “moves the Court to strike James
Gift and Meghan Davis from the record as Defendants.” 	Id. 	In the M&O, the Court ordered
Plaintiff to show good cause why his claims in Count II should not be dismissed for failure to state
a claim. (Doc. 14, at 11.) The Court noted that Plaintiff’s claims in Count II are the only claims
he alleges against Defendants James Gift and Megan Davis. Id. The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s
claims in Count II. Therefore, Defendants Gift and Davis are dismissed as defendants.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct the Docket (Doc. 17)
is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to correct the docket to reflect
that Plaintiff is suing Defendants in their individual and official capacities.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims in Count II are dismissed.
Defendants James Gift and Meghan Davis are dismissed from this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated February 18, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-03247-JWB-JBW Document 18 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 2