Cheatham (ID 2000064842) v. Gilkerson et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
RYAN CHRISTOPHER CHEATHAM,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3253-JWL
(FNU) GILKERSON, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is incarcerated
at the El Dorado Correctional Facility in El Dorado, Kansas (“EDCF”). The Court granted Plaintiff
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On December 2, 2025, the Court entered a Memorandum and
Order to Show Cause (Doc. 5) (“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) and Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 7).
Plaintiff’s allegations and the Court’s screening standards are set forth in the MOSC.
As Count I, Plaintiff alleges a First Amendment violation based on the denial of court
access. (Doc. 1, at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that there was a delay in receiving his mail and that EDCF
staff failed to provide his account statements. Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss his claims against
Defendants Crawford and Johnson that suggested the account statements were in fact provided.
(Doc. 4.) The Court noted in the MOSC that Plaintiff attached his inmate account statement to his
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. See Doc. 2–1.
Plaintiff alleges that EDCF staff caused him to miss deadlines in Case No. 25-3218 and
that the case was dismissed without prejudice. Id. at 2. The Court noted in the MOSC that although
Case 5:25-cv-03253-JWL Document 8 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 5

2
the case was dismissed on November 13, 2025, the dismissal order was vacated, and the case was
reopened on November 20, 2025. See Cheatham v. Easley, Case No. 25-3218-JWL, Docs. 5, 8
(D. Kan.).
The Court found in the MOSC that Plaintiff failed to show that staff at EDCF prevented
him from accessing the courts or caused him actual injury. See Proch v. Baker, Case No. 14-3021-
CM, 2017 WL 2793922, at *7 (D. Kan. June 28, 2017) (citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349
(1996) (violations of the constitutional right of access to the courts require a showing of injury due
to the deprivation); Sterling v. Edwards, 881 F. Supp. 488, 490 (D. Kan. 1995) (there must be
prejudice)). The Court ordered Plaintiff to show good cause why his court access claim should
not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
As Count II, Plaintiff alleges “retaliation violation of procedural due process and due
process of law under the 14th Amendment.” 	(Doc. 1, at 2.) 	As Count III, Plaintiff alleges
“violation of equal laws protection clause.” Id. at 5. The Court found in the MOSC that Plaintiff’s
retaliation claim was subject to dismissal for failure to allege adequate facts in support of the claim.
Plaintiff’s allegations regarding retaliation are generally conclusory, lacking facts to demonstrate
any improper retaliatory motive. 	The Court ordered Plaintiff to show good cause why his
retaliation claim should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The Court found in the MOSC that Plaintiff provides no factual allegations to support his
due process and equal protection claims. 	A pro se litigant’s “conclusory allegations without
supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be based.” Hall
v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 	“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the
‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
Case 5:25-cv-03253-JWL Document 8 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 5

3
(2007) (citations omitted). The complaint’s “factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level” and “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id.
at 555, 570. 	The Court ordered Plaintiff to show good cause why his due process and equal
protection claims should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff has filed a response (Doc. 6) claiming that his legal mail was tampered with by
Defendant Gilkerson, and that he has no library access to obtain case law to support his claims.
(Doc. 6, at 1.) Plaintiff also states that he wishes to request an attorney. Id. at 2. Plaintiff then
takes issue with this Court not accepting filings for other courts so that he may electronically file
them with this Court and then have this Court forward them to other courts. Id. Plaintiff alleges
that making him mail the filings in other cases causes prolonged litigation. Id. This Court does
not accept electronic filings for forwarding to other courts.
Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 7). Plaintiff attaches
his proposed amended complaint. (Doc. 7–1.) Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint continues
to allege a court access claim, retaliation, and an equal protection claim. Plaintiff seeks damages
based on the dismissal of his complaint in Case No. 25-3218. He also claims that Case No. 25-
3091 “would of [sic] been dismissed without curing deficiencies.” Id. at 3.
Nothing in Plaintiff’s response or proposed amended complaint cures the deficiencies
noted in the MOSC or shows good cause why his claims should not be dismissed for failure to
state a claim. 	Plaintiff has failed to show an injury for his court access claim. 	Plaintiff’s Case
No. 25-3218-JWL is currently pending before the Court. 	Although he argues that the Court’s
forms were returned in Case No. 25-3091 and that the case “would have been dismissed,” that case
is likewise open and pending.
Case 5:25-cv-03253-JWL Document 8 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Plaintiff points out that the Court’s Memorandum and Order and forms were returned in
Case No. 25-3091. See Cheatham v. Howes, Case No. 25-3091-JWl (D. Kan.). Plaintiff filed Case
No. 25-3091 on May 12, 2025, and listed his address as the Larned Correctional Facility in Larned,
Kansas. See id. at Doc. 1. The Court’s September 2, 2025 Memorandum and Order and forms in
that case were mailed to Plaintiff at the Larned Correctional Facility. 	See id. at Doc. 23. 	The
following day—September 3, 2025—the Court received Plaintiff’s Notice of Change of Address
indicating that he was now housed at EDCF. 	See id. at Doc. 24. 	On September 22, 2025, the
Court received the return mail for the Memorandum and Order at Doc. 23, which states “return to
sender, insufficient address, unable to forward.” Id. at Doc. 31. The envelope for the return mail
indicates that it contains Doc. 23. Id In light of the return mail and Plaintiff’s change of address,
the Court remailed the documents to Plaintiff at EDCF on September 22, 2025—the same day the
original mail was returned.
Plaintiff has failed to show an injury in Case No. 25-3218 or Case No. 25-3091. Both cases
remain pending before the Court. 	Plaintiff has also failed to cure the deficiencies noted for his
retaliation and equal protection claims. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is denied as futile.
Plaintiff has failed to show good cause why his claims should not be dismissed for failure to state
a claim. Any request for the appointment of counsel is likewise denied in light of the dismissal of
this case for failure to state a claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
Amend Complaint (Doc. 7) is denied as futile.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel in
Doc. 6 is denied.
Case 5:25-cv-03253-JWL Document 8 Filed 01/06/26 Page 4 of 5

5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated January 6, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-03253-JWL Document 8 Filed 01/06/26 Page 5 of 5