Sherman v. Veil

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
TROY ADAM SHERMAN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 26-3003-JWL
SHANNON VEIL,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff Troy Adam Sherman is hereby required to show good cause, in writing to the
undersigned, why this action should not be dismissed due to the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s
Complaint that are discussed herein.
1. Nature of the Matter before the Court
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is housed
at the Center for Behavioral Medicine in Kansas City, Missouri. Plaintiff has failed to either pay
the filing fee or to file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Therefore, the Court issued
a Notice of Deficiency (Doc. 2) (“NOD”) granting Plaintiff until February 5, 2026, to either pay
the filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 	The Court provisionally
grants Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff must still pay the fee or file an ifp
motion by the deadline in the NOD.
Plaintiff names Shannon Veil, a law enforcement officer from the Labette County Sheriff’s
Office, as the sole defendant. 	Plaintiff claims that he filed charges against his sister through
Detective Shannon Veil for robbing Plaintiff over seven years ago. (Doc. 1, at 2.) Plaintiff claims
that Defendant Veil “let her and some 30 people get away with $950,000 dollars” that Plaintiff
won from PayPerks.com. Id.
Case 5:26-cv-03003-JWL Document 3 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 9

2
As Count I, Plaintiff alleges “grand larceny” and states that after reporting the crime he
was beaten and shot twice. 	Id. at 3. 	As Count II, Plaintiff alleges “aggravated assault with a
firearm,” and states that after reporting the crime he was “attacked by people, and a female was
killed by people that attacked [plaintiff].” Id.
Although Plaintiff does not include a request for relief in his Complaint, in an attachment
to the Complaint he states that he is hoping to speed up his release. 	(Doc. 1–2, at 1.) 	He also
suggests that he is requesting military guns, ammunition, and an I.D. so that he can protect the two
towns that he allegedly owns in Kansas. Id. He claims he does not have a police department or
police officers in his towns yet, but he will get around to hiring them soon. Id. Plaintiff then lists
his family members, including Adolf Hitler and Helen Keller. Id. at 2.
II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).1
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims that are
legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that
seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–
(2).
1 Plaintiff previously filed an action in this Court on December 17, 2025. See Sherman v. State of Missouri, Case
No. 25-3273-JWL (D. Kan.). In dismissing that case, the Court noted that Plaintiff “currently resides in Kansas City,
Missouri and it appears from his pro se complaint that he has been involuntarily civilly committed to the custody of
the Missouri Department of Mental Health after being adjudicated incompetent to participate in pending Missouri
state criminal charges.” Id. at Doc. 3, at 1. A plaintiff detained for purposes of undergoing a competency evaluation
in connection with criminal charges is a “prisoner” for purposes of the PLRA. See Gilmore v. Easter, 2022 WL
3880714, at *7 (D. Kan. 2022) (finding plaintiff subject to competency proceedings under K.S.A. § 22-2302 remains
subject to §§ 1915 and 1915A) (citing Wolfson v. United States, 336 F. App’x 792, 794 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished)
(where plaintiff argued he was not subject to the PLRA because he was sentenced to civil commitment until he regains
competency, the court rejected the argument finding that the PLRA still applied and that the case was distinguishable
from cases where the plaintiff was civilly committed under a state’s sexually violent predator act, where the inmate
was held at a state hospital after being found not guilty by reason of insanity, and where alien detainees were not
facing criminal charges)).
Case 5:26-cv-03003-JWL Document 3 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 9

3
“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by
the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law.” 	West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48
(1988)(citations omitted); Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1523 (10th Cir. 1992). A court
liberally construes a pro se complaint and applies “less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In addition, the court accepts
all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true. Anderson v. Blake, 469 F.3d 910, 913 (10th
Cir. 2006). On the other hand, “when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise
a claim of entitlement to relief,” dismissal is appropriate. 	Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 558 (2007).
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 ‘entitle[ment] to
relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action.” 	Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (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 Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained “that, to state a claim in federal court, a
complaint must explain what each defendant did to [the pro se plaintiff]; when the defendant did
it; how the defendant’s action harmed [the plaintiff]; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff
believes the defendant violated.” Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163
(10th Cir. 2007). The court “will not supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff’s
complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff’s behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d
Case 5:26-cv-03003-JWL Document 3 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 9

4
1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
The Tenth Circuit has pointed out that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Twombly and
Erickson gave rise to a new standard of review for § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals. 	See Kay v.
Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007)(citations omitted); see also Smith v. United States,
561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009). As a result, courts “look to the specific allegations in the
complaint to determine whether they plausibly support a legal claim for relief.” Kay, 500 F.3d at
1218 (citation omitted). Under this new standard, “a plaintiff must ‘nudge his claims across the
line from conceivable to plausible.’” Smith, 561 F.3d at 1098 (citation omitted). “Plausible” in
this context does not mean “likely to be true,” but rather refers “to the scope of the allegations in
a complaint: if they are so general that they encompass a wide swath of conduct, much of it
innocent,” then the plaintiff has not “nudged [his] claims across the line from conceivable to
plausible.” Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Twombly, 127 S.
Ct. at 1974).
III. DISCUSSION
1. Failure to State a Claim and Statute of Limitations
Plaintiff fails to show how the sole defendant violated his constitutional rights. He claims
that he reported a crime to Defendant Veil and Defendant Veil let the people go. 	Conclusory
allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief
can be based. 	A complaint must explain what each defendant did to the plaintiff; when the
defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed the plaintiff; and what specific legal right the
plaintiff believes the defendant violated. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to provide this information.
Plaintiff should show good cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a
claim.
Case 5:26-cv-03003-JWL Document 3 Filed 01/06/26 Page 4 of 9

5
An essential element of a civil rights claim against an individual is that person’s direct
personal participation in the acts or inactions upon which the complaint is based. 	Kentucky v.
Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165–66 (1985); Henry v. Storey, 658 F.3d 1235, 1241 (10th Cir. 2011)
(“But § 1983 imposes liability for a defendant’s own actions—personal participation in the specific
constitutional violation complained of is essential.”) (citing Foote v. Spiegel, 118 F.3d 1416, 1423–
24 (10th Cir. 1997) (“Individual liability under § 1983 must be based on personal involvement in
the alleged constitutional violation.”) (citation omitted)); Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1228
(10th Cir. 2006) (“In order for liability to arise under § 1983, a defendant’s direct personal
responsibility for the claimed deprivation . . . must be established.”) (emphasis added) (citation
omitted)). Conclusory allegations of involvement are not sufficient. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff
must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions,
has violated the Constitution.”). 	As a result, a plaintiff is required to name each defendant not
only in the caption of the complaint, but again in the body of the complaint and to include in the
body a description of the acts taken by each defendant that violated plaintiff’s federal constitutional
rights.
Plaintiff also alleges that this happened seven years ago. 	The statute of limitations
applicable to § 1983 actions is determined from looking at the appropriate state statute of
limitations and tolling principles. See Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536, 539 (1989). “The forum
state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions governs civil rights claims under both 42
U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983. . . . In Kansas, that is the two-year statute of limitations in Kan. Stat.
Ann. § 60–513(a).” Brown v. Unified Sch. Dist. 501, Topeka Pub. Sch., 465 F.3d 1184, 1188 (10th
Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).
Case 5:26-cv-03003-JWL Document 3 Filed 01/06/26 Page 5 of 9

6
While state law governs the length of the limitations period and tolling issues, “the accrual
date of a § 1983 cause of action is a question of federal law.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388
(2007). Under federal law, the claim accrues “when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause
of action.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In other words, “[a] § 1983 action
accrues when facts that would support a cause of action are or should be apparent.” 	Fogle v.
Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1258 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted),
cert. denied 549 U.S. 1059 (2006). A district court may dismiss a complaint filed by an indigent
plaintiff if it is patently clear from the allegations as tendered that the action is barred by the statute
of limitations. 	Id. at 1258–59; see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214 (2007); Hawkins v.
Lemons, No. 09-3116-SAC, 2009 WL 2475130, at *2 (D. Kan. Aug. 12, 2009). Plaintiff should
show good cause why his claims are not barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
2. Criminal Charges
Plaintiff’s Complaint consists of two counts: grand larceny and aggravated assault with a
firearm. Plaintiff does not have a private right of action to enforce criminal laws. As a general
matter, federal criminal statutes that “do not provide for a private right of action” are “not
enforceable through a civil action.” Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); see
also Campbell v. Hitchcock, 2021 WL 2550178, at *2 (D. Kan. 2021) (finding that criminal statute
prohibiting theft does not confer a private right of action under § 1983) (citing Ledin v. United
States Postal Service, 2018 WL 11242022 *3 (W.D. Mo. 7/16/2018) (mail theft statute confers no
private right of action because it is a criminal statute); see also, Perry v. Pringle, 2014 WL 129391
*2 (D. Kan. 1/14/2014) (may not bring a civil cause of action based upon the violation of a criminal
statute)).
Case 5:26-cv-03003-JWL Document 3 Filed 01/06/26 Page 6 of 9

7
Likewise, there is no indication that Kansas courts have found that a Kansas criminal
statute can be used as the basis for a civil action. See Droge v. Rempel, 180 P.3d 1094, 1097 (Kan.
App. 2008) (“ ‘Kansas appellate courts generally will not infer a private cause of action where a
statute provides criminal penalties but does not mention civil liability.’ ”) (quoting Pullen v. West,
92 P.3d 584, 597 (Kan. 2004)); see also LeTourneau v. Venture Corp., Case No. 15-cv-2629-JAR,
2017 WL 2378331, at *6 (D. Kan. June 1, 2017) (“the Court is unwilling to infer a private cause
of action for a statute with solely criminal penalties”).
Plaintiff should show good cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed because it is
based on crimes for which Plaintiff does not have a private cause of action.
3. Relief
Although Plaintiff does not include a request for relief in his Complaint, his attachments
suggest that he is seeking a speedier release, and military guns, ammunition, and I.D. In dismissing
Plaintiff’s prior case, the Court noted that:
Plaintiff also seeks relief other than monetary damages, but the other
relief he seeks is not available in this civil rights action. First,
Plaintiff seeks his release from state custody. (Doc. 1, p. 6.) A
petition for habeas corpus relief is a state prisoner’s sole avenue in
federal court for his release. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
499 (1973); Boutwell v. Keating, 399 F.3d 1203, 1209 (10th Cir.
2005). Plaintiff also asks that he be issued a military identification
card and that his personal property be delivered to him from various
locations in Missouri. (Doc. 1, p. 6.) This Court lacks the authority
in this case to grant this type of injunctive relief. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 65(d)(2) (discussing parties bound by injunctions and restraining
orders).
Sherman v. State of Missouri, Case No. 25-3273-JWL, Doc. 3, at n.1 (D. Kan. Dec. 18, 2025).
Despite the Court’s prior order, Plaintiff continues to seek a speedier release and military
equipment. Plaintiff’s requests are not properly brought in this § 1983 action.
Case 5:26-cv-03003-JWL Document 3 Filed 01/06/26 Page 7 of 9

8
4. Frivolous
Plaintiff’s claims also appear to be frivolous. “A complaint . . . is frivolous when it ‘lacks
an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” Manco v. Does, 363 F. App’x 572, 575 (10th Cir. 2010)
(citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). The Tenth Circuit in Manco held that:
The district court also did not abuse its discretion when it held
Manco’s 	claims 	related 	to 	the 	alleged 	tracking 	device 	were
frivolous. Manco’s theory that numerous state officials monitor his
thoughts and send him inaudible, profane messages is not supported
by any evidence. Manco provides citations to various patents and
secondary literature that describe tracking devices. Even if, for the
sake of argument, this court assumes that such devices exist, Manco
fails to provide evidence that officials implanted a device in his
body, nor does he give a plausible motive for state officials to
embark on such an endeavor. We agree with the district court that
Manco’s tracking device claims are frivolous. See Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340
(1992) (describing frivolous claims as “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and
“delusional,” and holding “a finding of factual frivolousness is
appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational
or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially
noticeable facts available to contradict them”).
Id.
Plaintiff claims that he won $950,000 from PayPerks.com2 and his sister and others stole
this money from Plaintiff. 	Plaintiff also claims that he owns two towns in Kansas and needs
military equipment to personally police his towns. 	Plaintiff should show good cause why his
Complaint should not be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.
2 The PayPerks website provides that:
PayPerks education and rewards drive real-world behavior change through easy-to-digest, interactive
education paired with fun gamification and rewards. We help cardholders learn how to use their cards more
effectively, while also offering valuable information on safety and security, budgeting and saving, and other
relevant financial skills. Cardholders are rewarded through quizzes, usage rewards, and the chance to win
small cash prizes in monthly drawings.
https://www.payperks.com/ (last visited Jan. 6, 2025) (emphasis added).
Case 5:26-cv-03003-JWL Document 3 Filed 01/06/26 Page 8 of 9

9
IV. Response Required
Plaintiff is required to show good cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed for the
reasons stated herein. 	Failure to respond by the deadline may result in dismissal of this action
without further notice for failure to state a claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Court provisionally grants Plaintiff leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. 	Plaintiff remains obligated to comply with the Court’s NOD at
Doc. 2 by February 5, 2026, by either paying the filing fee or submitting a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted until February 5, 2026, in which
to show good cause, in writing to the undersigned, why Plaintiff’s Complaint should not be
dismissed for the reasons stated herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated January 6, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:26-cv-03003-JWL Document 3 Filed 01/06/26 Page 9 of 9