Wright v. Arbruster et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
AARON BLAKE WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3261-JWL
JAY ARBRUSTER, AKA
JAY ARMBRISTER, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is in custody
at the Douglas County Correctional Facility in Lawrence, Kansas (“DCCF”). The Court granted
Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 	On January 7, 2025, the Court entered a
Memorandum and Order to Show Cause (Doc. 5) (“MOSC”) granting Plaintiff until February 6,
2026, 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 on August 29, 2025, he was arrested for murder and placed in
administrative segregation at the DCCF. (Doc. 1, at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that he discovered that
he was not properly “placed in the facility system,” claiming that his mug shot shows him with
two eyes even though he lost an eye in June 2025. 	Id. 	Plaintiff alleges that this “fraudulent
information” constitutes an attempt to defraud through an abuse of process. Id.
As Count I, Plaintiff alleges abuse of process based on a violation of Plaintiff’s Fifth
Amendment rights “when person info data affects Plaintiff[’s] liberty rights.” Id. at 3. 	In support,
Plaintiff alleges that his mug shot shows him with two good eyes and different clothing. Id. As
Count II, Plaintiff alleges abuse of process based on a violation of the Fifth Amendment right
Case 5:25-cv-03261-JWL Document 10 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
against self-incrimination. 	Id. 	In support, Plaintiff alleges that disciplinary tickets dated
November 21 and 24, 2025, subject him to cruel and unusual punishment. 	Id. 	As Count III,
Plaintiff alleges abuse of process based on a violation of his First Amendment right to access the
courts. 	Id. at 4. 	In support, Plaintiff alleges that Disciplinary Ticket #25-289347 relates to the
processing of his legal mail to the courts. Id.
In an attachment to his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the numbers were switched on his
two disciplinary tickets and that an officer misplaced his legal mail that contained a K.S.A. 60-
1501 habeas corpus challenge and that Plaintiff does not know the location of his legal pleading.
(Doc. 1–1, at 2.) 	The disciplinary ticket appears to be for the obstruction, interfering with, or
preventing staff from performing duties based on his alleged refusal to take medication until he
received a copy of the request form regarding his mail. Id. at 5. Plaintiff also attaches a document
showing a decision by the Administrative Segregation Review Board to have Plaintiff remain in
Ad-seg based on safety concerns. Id. at 7.
The Court found in the MOSC that Plaintiff’s allegations are unclear, but he takes issue
with the DCCF using an old photo of him in their system. Plaintiff suggests that this constitutes
an abuse of process and somehow affects his liberty rights. The Court found that Plaintiff failed
to show that the DCCF’s use of an outdated photo violates his constitutional rights, and the claim
appears to be frivolous.
The Court also found in the MOSC that Plaintiff failed to explain how his Fifth Amendment
rights were violated during his disciplinary hearings or how he was forced to incriminate himself.
He also failed to show that he received two disciplinary tickets for the same act or that two
disciplinary tickets were “switched.” 	The Court ordered Plaintiff to show good cause why his
abuse of process, Fifth Amendment, and cruel and unusual punishments claims should not be
Case 5:25-cv-03261-JWL Document 10 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to show that he was prevented from pursuing a
nonfrivolous claim for purposes of his court access claim. The Court also ordered him to show
good cause why any claim based on the lack of an “application” on the Inmate Communication
System should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The Court ordered Plaintiff to show good cause why his claims should not be dismissed
for the reasons stated in the MOSC. The MOSC states that “[t]he failure to respond by the deadline
may result in dismissal of this matter without further notice for failure to state a claim.” (Doc. 5,
at 11.) Plaintiff has failed to respond by the Court’s deadline and has failed to show good cause
why his Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated February 13, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-03261-JWL Document 10 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 3