Evans v. Johnson County District Attorney et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SHARMUS DARCEL EVANS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3156-JWL
JOHNSON COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brought this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Plaintiff is
incarcerated at the Glynn County Adult Detention Center in Brunswick, Georgia. 	The Court
granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 	On January 16, 2026, the Court entered a
Memorandum and Order (Doc. 19) dismissing this case for failure to state a claim. This matter is
before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his complaint (Doc. 30) with a proposed second
amended complaint attached.
In the Memorandum and Order dismissing this case, the Court also denied Plaintiff’s
motion (Doc. 12) seeking to alter his amended complaint or to file a second amended complaint.
The Court found that Plaintiff had already filed one amended complaint (Doc. 8) and therefore
needed leave of court to file another. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Refusing leave to amend is generally
justified only upon a showing of undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or
dilatory motive, failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or futility of
amendment. 	Castleglen, Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 984 F.2d 1571, 1585 (10 th Cir. 1993)
(citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). The matter is left to the Court's discretion.
),/('
86'LVWULFW&RXUW
'LVWULFWRI.DQVDV
&OHUN86'LVWULFW&RXUW
%\BBBBB'HSXW\&OHUN
03/02/2026
SND
Case 5:25-cv-03156-JWL Document 31 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Duncan v. Manager, Dep't of Safety, City & Cnty. of Denver, 397 F.3d 1300, 1315 (10 th Cir. 2005).
The Court denied leave based on futility, finding that nothing in Plaintiff’s proposed amendment
cured the deficiencies noted in the show cause order (Doc. 9) or demonstrated why his claims
should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 	The Court further found that the second
amended complaint attempted to add a claim that would be untimely.
Plaintiff’s latest proposed amended complaint again describes the alleged theft of his
identity that he asserts occurred while he was in Johnson County, Kansas. The proposed amended
complaint also describes some of his life as a homeless person attempting to keep warm in a
Midwest winter and expresses frustration with his current detention in Georgia due to his inability
to post bond.
Plaintiff describes his claim as denial of his “First, Fifth, Eighth Amendment United States
constitutional civil rights when Defendant(s), State of Kansas, Johnson County Dist. Attorney(s),
state prosecutor(s) among others names known and unknown violated the below criminal acts
listed under the color of state and governing laws.” (Doc. 30, at 27.) Count I asserts identity theft
and identity fraud. Id. at 31. The remaining counts are labeled “stalking,” “criminal theft,” and
“entrapment.” Id. at 32. Plaintiff names as defendants the State of Kansas, the Kansas Attorney
General, the Johnson County District Attorney, the manager of the City of Olathe Police
Department, unknown employees of the downtown Olathe Public Library, the manager of a
Quiktrip convenience store, the manager of a Walmart Supercenter, and the manager of the Olathe
Postal Service. Id. at 27- 42. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 43.
Plaintiff does not explain how these defendants engaged in identity theft, stalking, or
entrapment or, more importantly for a § 1983 action, how they violated his constitutional rights.
Case 5:25-cv-03156-JWL Document 31 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Because this matter is closed and because the proposed amended complaint does not cure the
deficiencies previously noted by the Court or state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff’s
motion is denied and the second amended complaint is of no effect. Moreover, Plaintiff is hereby
notified that future filings in this closed case may be summarily denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
(Doc. 30) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter remains closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated March 2, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-03156-JWL Document 31 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 3