Sullivan v. Pacheco et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JACK SULLIVAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARMEN PACHECO AND
SERGIO JIMENEZ,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
No. 26-2048-KHV-BGS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Jack Sullivan filed this action pro se.1 The named Defendants are two individuals.
The complaint is one page. 	Other than a quotation from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a demand for
damages in excess of $75,000, the Complaint consists of one paragraph: 	“2. Both Defendants
delayed the proceedings, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983[.]” (Doc. 1.)
Simply stated, these allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The
Complaint consists of one entirely conclusory allegation about delaying proceedings. 	Plaintiff
fails to state any facts describing how Defendants allegedly violated his rights under § 1983.
Plaintiff does not even describe or identify the “proceedings” that have allegedly been delayed.
The Complaint clearly fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a
short and plain statement of the claim and the basis for jurisdiction. 	Although Rule 8 does not
require extensive detail, it “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-
me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
1 	Plaintiff proceeds pro se. The Court construes his filings liberally and holds him
to a less stringent standard than trained lawyers. 	See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
(1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). But the Court does not assume the
role of advocate for the pro se litigant. Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
Case 2:26-cv-02048-KHV-BGS Document 3 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Further, to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must also include “factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. Here, Plaintiff has thoroughly failed to provide such facts. Although the Court must
“make some allowances for ‘the [pro se] plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal authority, his
confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity
with pleading requirements [,]” … the court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the
litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor
Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). The Court may dismiss
a complaint sua sponte that fails to comply with the requisite pleading standards. 	Rodriguez v.
Nationwide Homes, Inc., 756 F. App’x 782, 785 (10th Cir. 2018).
The Court also has concerns as to whether subject matter jurisdiction exists. To the extent
Plaintiff is asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he has failed to “make clear exactly who is
alleged to have done what to whom.” Brown v. Montoya, 662 F.3d 1152, 1163 (10th Cir. 2011)
(internal quotation and citation omitted).
The Court surmises the case may arise out of a judicial matter given Plaintiff’s reference
to “delayed proceedings.” (Doc. 1.) Another court faced with a complaint alleging conspiracy has
noted that Defendant Jimenez is a state court judge in New York. See Williams v. Jimenez, No. 26-
40, Doc. 3 (M.D. La. Jan. 13, 2026). Further research reveals that Defendant Pacheco is also a
state court judge in New York. 	Lawsuits brought against judicial officers as defendants likely
raise any number of subject matter jurisdiction issues. 	See Bonjorno v. Rush Cnty., Kan., 2025
WL 2374144, at *2 (D. Kan. 2025) (noting the likelihood of immunity issues in such lawsuits).
With Defendants likely located in the state of New York, the Court fails to see how the District of
Kansas could have personal jurisdiction over them. 	Plaintiff has listed his address as Santa
Case 2:26-cv-02048-KHV-BGS Document 3 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Barbara, California, further complicating how Kansas would be a proper venue for his claims.2
Finally, depending on the stage of the proceedings the underlying legal case was in, the
Court has additional concerns regarding its ability to adjudicate Plaintiff’s claims. In the event a
final judgment was entered, his claims would be barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. If the
proceedings are on-going, then they would be barred by Younger abstention.
If a final judgment has been entered in the state court proceeding, then Plaintiff's claims
should be dismissed pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. A federal court does not have
jurisdiction to review decisions of a state court or any claim “inextricably intertwined” with claims
decided by a state court. See Mounkes v. Conklin, 922 F. Supp. 1501, 1508-10 (D. Kan. 1996)
(explaining the doctrine, deriving from District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460
U.S. 462, 476 (1983) and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923)).
In the alternative, if the state court proceedings are on-going, the Court should abstain from
exercising jurisdiction pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine. 	Younger abstention is
warranted when three conditions are satisfied:
First, there must be ongoing state criminal, civil, or administrative
proceedings. Second, the state court must offer an adequate forum
to hear the federal plaintiff's claims from the federal lawsuit. Third,
the state proceeding must involve important state interests, matters
which traditionally look to state law for their resolution or implicate
separately articulated state policies.
Taylor v. Jaquez, 126 F.3d 1294, 1297 (10th Cir. 1997). Once these requirements have been met,
“Younger abstention dictates that federal courts not interfere.” Amanatullah v. Colo. Bd. of Med.
Exam’rs, 187 F.3d 1160, 1163 (10th Cir. 1999). Either way, the Court has no jurisdiction. All
2 	A Pacer search reveals that Plaintiff has filed similar complaints against these
Defendants in approximately 45 federal courts throughout the United States. 	This strongly
suggests an abuse of the legal process by Plaintiff.
Case 2:26-cv-02048-KHV-BGS Document 3 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 4

4
things considered, the Court finds that dismissal is appropriate and that leave to amend would be
unlikely to cure the deficiencies.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint (Doc. 1) wholly fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and fails to establish subject-
matter or personal jurisdiction. As such, dismissal without prejudice is warranted. In addition to
the host of substantive issues with this case outlined above, this also supports the Court’s sua
sponte dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim.
THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERS that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the pending motion to proceed without
payment of fees (Doc. 2) is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 5th day of February, 2026 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge
Case 2:26-cv-02048-KHV-BGS Document 3 Filed 02/05/26 Page 4 of 4