Fusilier v. Kansas, State of et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KAREN M. FUSILIER,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-4132-JWB-BGS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FOR DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Karen Fusilier filed this action pro se1 . In conjunction with her federal court
complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees, which is a
motion requesting leave for Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Doc. 3. After review of
Plaintiff’s complaint, however, the Court recommends to the District Court that Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendants be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.
I. 	Standard of Review for IFP Complaints
When a Plaintiff proceeds IFP, the court may screen the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). The court “shall dismiss” an in forma pauperis case “at any time if the court determines
that … the action or appeal – (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). “When a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, a court has a duty to
review the complaint to ensure a proper balance between these competing interests.” Mitchell v.
1 Plaintiff proceeds pro se. The Court construes her filings liberally and holds her 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 5:25-cv-04132-JWB-BGS Document 7 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 9

2
Deseret Health Care Facility, No. 13-1360-RDR-KGG, 2013 WL 5797609, at *1 (D. Kan. Sept. 30,
2013). The purpose of § 1915(e) is “the prevention of abusive or capricious litigation.” Harris v.
Campbell, 804 F. Supp. 153, 155 (D. Kan. 1992) (internal citation omitted) (discussing similar
language contained in § 1915(d), prior to the 1996 amendment). Sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(d)
may be appropriate when “on the face of the complaint it clearly appears that the action is frivolous
or malicious.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1108 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Henriksen v. Bentley, 644
F.2d 852, 854 (10th Cir.1981)).
In determining whether dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a plaintiff’s
complaint will be analyzed by the Court under the same sufficiency standard as a Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir.
2007). In conducting this analysis, the Court will accept as true all well-pleaded facts and draw all
reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of a plaintiff. See Moore v. Guthrie, 438 F.3d 1036,
1039 (10th Cir. 2006).
While a complaint generally need not plead detailed facts, it must give the defendant
sufficient notice of the claims asserted by the plaintiff so they may provide an appropriate answer.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Monroe v. Owens, 38 Fed. App’x. 510, 515 (10th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
This requires that a complaint contain three minimal pieces of information: (1) a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, (2) a short and plain statement of
the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, and (3) the relief requested. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a).
Because the court will liberally construe the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff, the court should
“reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail … despite
the 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.” Hall, 935 F.2d at
Case 5:25-cv-04132-JWB-BGS Document 7 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 9

3
1110. The court cannot, however, become an advocate for the pro se plaintiff. Id.
A pro se plaintiff’s complaint must still “set forth the grounds of plaintiff’s entitlement to
relief through more than labels, conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action.” Fisher v. Lynch, 531 F.Supp.2d 1253, 1260 (D. Kan. 2008) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964–65, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110
(holding that a plaintiff need not precisely state each element, but must plead minimal factual
allegations on those material elements that must be proven)). “In other words, plaintiff must allege
sufficient facts to state a claim which is plausible – rather than merely conceivable – on its face.” Id.
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S. Ct. at 1974). See also Bemis, 500 F.3d at 1218 (stating that
factual allegations in the complaint must establish “above the speculative level” that plaintiff is
entitled to relief).
In addition, the court also has an obligation to ensure it has subject matter jurisdiction to
hear and resolve the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). The court may raise the issue
sua sponte. See 1mage Software, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 459 F.3d 1044, 1048 (10th Cir. 2006).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only exercise jurisdiction when authorized.
Pfuetze v. Kansas, No. 10-1139-CM-GLR, 2010 WL 3892243, at *3 (D. Kan. Sept. 29, 2010), aff'd, 420
F. App'x 854 (10th Cir. 2011). When it becomes apparent that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking,
the court must dismiss the case regardless of the stage of the proceeding. Fish v. Kobach, 189 F.
Supp. 3d 1107, 1124–25 (D. Kan. 2016). The court has a duty to raise and resolve issues of subject
matter jurisdiction, even if no party has objected to the exercise of jurisdiction. Wachovia Bank v.
Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 305 (2006). To determine whether a plaintiff has adequately alleged subject-
matter jurisdiction, the court looks to the face of the complaint. Penteco Corp. v. Union Gas Sys., Inc.,
929 F.2d 1519, 1521 (10th Cir. 1991).
Case 5:25-cv-04132-JWB-BGS Document 7 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 9

4
The Court’s relaxed scrutiny of the pro se plaintiff’s pleadings “does not relieve [her] of the
burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based.” Hall, 935 F.2d
at 1110. A pro se plaintiff’s pleading conclusory statements is insufficient to state a claim because
no special legal training is required to “recount the facts surrounding his alleged injury[.]” Id. See
also Olson v. Carmack, 641 Fed. App’x. 822, 825 (10th Cir. 2016). If this Court finds, after construing
the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint liberally, that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, the court is compelled to recommend that the action be dismissed.
II. 	Plaintiff’s Claims and Factual Allegations
The following facts come from Plaintiff's complaint and attached exhibits. See generally Doc.
1. For § 1915 screening purposes, the Court accepts the Plaintiff's allegations as true and construes
all reasonable inferences drawn from those allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff.
See Kay, 500 F.3d at 1217-18.
Plaintiff Karen Fusilier commenced this action by utilizing the Court’s civil complaint form
and naming a laundry list of Defendants. It is difficult to discern from the pleadings who all of
these Defendants are or how each is allegedly involved. From what the Court can glean, Plaintiff
appears to name the State of Kansas, the Sedgwick County District Attorney (Marc Bennett),
assistant district attorneys, the Wichita City Attorney (Jennifer Magaña), judges, and numerous other
individuals with whom the Court is unfamiliar.
Beyond those threshold identifications, Plaintiff’s submission provides little in the way of a
traditional factual narrative. The “Statement of Claim” section lists only a broad date range—
“2021–2025”—without describing any events. In the damages section, Plaintiff states only “loss of
property,” “loss of freedom,” and “will present evidence with counsel.” And in the portions of the
form requesting additional information about the basis for jurisdiction, Plaintiff directs the reader to
“See Attached Paperwork.”
Case 5:25-cv-04132-JWB-BGS Document 7 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 9

5
The “attached paperwork” filed with the complaint does not provide a chronological
account of the underlying dispute. Instead, it sets out Plaintiff’s view of the crimes and causes of
action that may apply to her case. One page is titled, in all capitals, “A list of crimes which the state
(allegedly) commits against us in the family courts,” and it enumerates numerous federal criminal
statutes. Other pages list a broad range of civil theories across multiple domains—including civil-
rights statutes, employment discrimination laws, contract law, and various torts—without tying
those theories to specific actors or events.2
In sum, Plaintiff appears to be attempting to bring a wide-ranging civil-rights action
premised on perceived misconduct by state actors and other individuals over several years, arising
out of an unclear set of events. The materials do not identify the operative facts with the specificity
ordinarily necessary to understand the dispute. The complaint does not describe the events
underlying Plaintiff’s claims, explain what each Defendant allegedly did, or provide a coherent
timeline or factual narrative connecting the cited legal theories to the conduct of any particular
individual or entity.
For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s claims be
dismissed because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and the complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
III. 	Analysis
There are numerous problems with Plaintiff’s pleadings, but the Court need not catalogue
them all at this juncture. Put simply, Plaintiff has not provided the “short and plain statement”
required by Rule 8 showing entitlement to relief and has not articulated a basis for subject-matter
2 In her motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff includes a description stating that this case involves
allegations such as sex trafficking, stalking, civil-rights violations, domestic terrorism, attempted murder,
evidence tampering, and related misconduct. 	Even crediting that description, it does not change the Court’s
analysis. Plaintiff’s additional description in her IFP motion—while noted—does not supply the missing
facts or cure the pleading deficiencies, and it is not properly considered as part of the operative complaint.
Case 5:25-cv-04132-JWB-BGS Document 7 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 9

6
jurisdiction. Instead, the complaint lists only a broad time period and refers generally to “attached
paperwork,” without stating what each named Defendant did, when it occurred, or how those
actions violated Plaintiff’s rights. The Court explains below.
A. This Court has no Subject-Matter Jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Claims.
The party seeking to invoke federal subject-matter jurisdiction bears the burden of
establishing that jurisdiction is proper. Montoya v. Chao, 296 F.3d 952, 955 (10th Cir. 2002) (citing
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391
(1994)). Mere conclusory allegations of jurisdiction are insufficient. United States ex rel. Hafter D.O. v.
Spectrum Emergency Care, Inc., 190 F.3d 1156, 1160 (10th Cir. 1999). The basis for jurisdiction “must
appear on the face of a plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint.” Coando v. Coastal Oil & Gas Corp., 44 F.
App'x 389, 395 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting Martinez v. U.S. Olympic Comm., 802 F.2d 1275, 1280 (10th
Cir. 1986)). Thus, “[t]he complaint must identify the statutory or constitutional provision under
which the claim arises and allege sufficient facts to show that the case is one arising under federal
law.” Id.
Here, Plaintiff checked boxes suggesting the Court has federal-question jurisdiction, but she
did not identify any statutory or constitutional provision giving rise to her claim in the complaint’s
jurisdiction section, instead directing the Court to “See Attached Paperwork.” On these filings, the
Court cannot discern from the face of the complaint what claim Plaintiff is asserting, against whom,
or how any claim would arise under federal law. Plaintiff’s attachments do not cure this
jurisdictional deficiency.
The “attached paperwork” largely consists of lists of statutes and generalized legal labels—
many of them criminal statutes and broad cause-of-action headings—rather than a short and plain
factual statement of the underlying dispute. Absent a coherent set of operative facts, the Court
cannot determine whether Plaintiff’s case “arises under” federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
Case 5:25-cv-04132-JWB-BGS Document 7 Filed 01/27/26 Page 6 of 9

7
§ 1331 or otherwise falls within the Court’s limited jurisdiction. See Payn v. Kelley, 702 F. App'x 730,
773 (10th Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when plaintiff did not
state any “colorable claim arising under federal law.”). Nor does Plaintiff invoke diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint does not allege the citizenship of any party that
would establish complete diversity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (requiring plaintiff and defendant to be
citizens of different states). Plaintiff alleges no operative facts and provides only generalized legal
labels—the Court cannot discern any colorable federal claim, and therefore cannot exercise federal-
question jurisdiction.
Accordingly, Plaintiff has not carried her burden to establish subject-matter jurisdiction on
the face of the complaint, and the undersigned recommends to the District Judge that Plaintiff’s
complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
B. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
Even if the Court were to assume it has subject-matter jurisdiction, dismissal would still be
warranted because the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. To survive
screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a complaint must include sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. See Kay, 500 F.3d at 1217-18.
Although the Court construes a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally, a plaintiff must still allege facts
supporting a recognized cause of action. See id.
While a complaint generally need not plead detailed facts, it must give the defendant
sufficient notice of the claims asserted by the plaintiff so that they can provide an appropriate
answer. Monroe, 38 F.App’x at 515. Rule 8(a) requires three minimal pieces of information to
provide such notice to the defendant: (1) the pleading should contain a short and plain statement of
the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; (2) a short and plain statement of the grounds
upon which the Court's jurisdiction depends; and (3) the relief requested. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Case 5:25-cv-04132-JWB-BGS Document 7 Filed 01/27/26 Page 7 of 9

8
Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is not compliant with Rule 8 which requires a short and plain
statement showing entitlement to relief and giving each Defendant fair notice of what the claim is
and the grounds on which it rests. The portion of the form requiring a “short and plain statement
of the claim” contains only a general date range (“2021–2025”) and no factual allegations describing
any event or conduct.
The complaint likewise does not explain what each named Defendant did, where it occurred,
or how their actions allegedly violated Plaintiff’s rights, leaving the Court and any Defendant to
guess at the nature of the dispute. Nor do the attachments cure these deficiencies. Rather than
supplying a coherent narrative of operative facts, the attachments largely consist of lists of statutes,
constitutional provisions, and legal labels spanning numerous subject areas (including civil-rights
theories, tort theories, and criminal statutes), without connecting any particular Defendant to any
particular act.3 When a complaint fails to include specific allegations identifying what each
defendant allegedly did, it fails to state a claim. Wenger v. Johnson, No. 6:24-CV-01100-HLT-BGS,
2024 WL 4625541, at *7 (D. Kan. Oct. 30, 2024) (dismissing claims because there were “no specific
allegations referring to the remaining defendants”).
A compilation of legal terms and statutory citations is not a substitute for factual allegations.
Because Plaintiff has not provided a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief, the
complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 and fails to state a claim. The undersigned Magistrate Judge
recommends to the District Court that Plaintiff’s claims also be dismissed for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.
IV. 	Conclusion
3 In her complaint, Plaintiff cites to numerous criminal statutes. Criminal statutes do not provide for a
private right of action and are unenforceable through a civil action. Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076-
77 (10th Cir. 2007) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s lawsuit alleging violations of various criminal statutes).
To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to enforce criminal statutes, the undersigned recommends those claims
be dismissed because they do not provide a civil cause of action. Id.
Case 5:25-cv-04132-JWB-BGS Document 7 Filed 01/27/26 Page 8 of 9

9
For the reasons explained above, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Judge
dismiss Plaintiff's claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and because Plaintiff's complaint
does not state a claim on which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED to the District Court that Plaintiff’s complaint
(Doc. 1) be DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on
which relief may be granted.
IT IS ORDERED that a copy of the recommendation shall be sent to Plaintiff via certified
mail. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed R. Civ. P. 72, and D. Kan. Rule 72.1.4, Plaintiff shall
have fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of these proposed findings and recommendations to
serve and file with the U.S. District Judge assigned to the case, any written objections to the findings
of fact, conclusions of law, or recommendations of the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff’s
failure to file such written, specific objections within the 14-day period will bar appellate review of
the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the recommended disposition. See Moore v.
United States, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Dated January 27, 2026, at Wichita, Kansas.
/s/ B ROOKS S EVERSON
Brooks G. Severson
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:25-cv-04132-JWB-BGS Document 7 Filed 01/27/26 Page 9 of 9