Aich v. Reno County Correctional Facility et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JESSE JOSEPH AICH,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3248-JWL
RENO COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed this pro se civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is in custody at
the Reno County Correctional Facility in Hutchinson, Kansas (“RCCF”). 	The Court granted
Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court assessed a $120.00 initial partial filing fee
calculated under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The initial partial fee was due by December 18, 2025,
and has not been paid.
On November 18, 2025, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order to Show Cause
(Doc. 5) (“MOSC”) granting Plaintiff until December 18, 2025, in which to show good cause why
his Complaint should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the MOSC. Plaintiff has failed
to respond by the Court’s deadline.
Plaintiff alleges that in 2016 the RCCF allowed Turnkey to provide detainees’ families and
loved ones with the opportunity to purchase pictures on an electronic kiosk for the detainees.
(Doc. 1, at 2.) 	Plaintiff alleges that these pictures became his personal property. 	Id. 	Plaintiff
alleges that “at some time unknown to [him] they ‘switched systems’ and archived [his] pictures.”
Id. Plaintiff alleges that “they” refuse to “unarchive” the pictures. Id.
Plaintiff’s single count in this case claims that his pictures were taken. The Court found in
Case 5:25-cv-03248-JWL Document 6 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 2

2
the MOSC that Plaintiff’s property claim was subject to dismissal. Deprivations of property do
not deny due process as long as there is an adequate post-deprivation remedy. A due process claim
will arise only if there is no such procedure or it is inadequate. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S.
517, 533 (1984); see also Smith v. Colorado Dep’t of Corr., 23 F.3d 339, 340 (10th Cir. 1994)
(“Fourteenth Amendment due process guarantees pertaining to property are satisfied when an
adequate, state postdeprivation remedy exists for deprivations occasioned by state employees.”).
Kansas prisoners have an adequate state post-deprivation remedy. See generally, Sawyer
v. Green, 316 F. App’x 715, 717, 2008 WL 2470915, at *2 (10th Cir. 2008) (finding Kansas county
prisoner could seek relief in state courts to redress alleged deprivation of property). Plaintiff failed
to allege that an adequate post-deprivation remedy is unavailable. Because an adequate, state post-
deprivation remedy exists, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show good cause why his property claim
should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The Court’s MOSC provides that “[f]ailure to respond by the deadline may result in
dismissal of this matter without further notice for failure to state a claim.” (Doc. 5, at 4.) Plaintiff
has failed to respond by the Court’s deadline and has failed to show good cause why this matter
should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that this matter is dismissed for
failure to state a claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated December 22, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-03248-JWL Document 6 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 2