Adams v. Schroeder et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ARTHUR LEE ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 26-3053-JWL
KEITH SCHROEDER, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is in custody
at the Reno County Jail in Hutchinson, Kansas. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. On March 20, 2026, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order to Show Cause
(Doc. 4) (“MOSC”) granting Plaintiff until April 20, 2026, to show good cause why his Complaint
should not be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the MOSC. Plaintiff has not filed a response
to the MOSC, but instead filed a new complaint (Doc. 5).
Plaintiff’s claims relate to his state criminal proceedings. Plaintiff claimed in his original
Complaint that his home was raided on November 7, 2022, by the Reno County Sheriff’s Office.
(Doc. 1, at 2.) He claimed that the warrant/affidavit failed to show probable cause and “appeared
to be written post hoc.” Id. As Count I, Plaintiff alleged an unreasonable search and seizure in
violation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 3. He also claimed that his Fifth Amendment rights
were violated when he was not given the opportunity to confront his accusers at his August 2025
trial. Id. at 4. 	As Count II, he alleged a due process violation based on suborning perjury. Id. at
3. He also alleged a speedy trial violation based on it taking three years (from October 7, 2022 1 to
1 Although Plaintiff references October 7, 2022, he alleges that the raid occurred on November 7, 2022. As set forth
below, his state criminal case was filed on November 14, 2022.
Case 5:26-cv-03053-JWL Document 6 Filed 05/06/26 Page 1 of 5

2
August 11, 2025) to get to trial. 	Id. at 5. 	As Count III, Plaintiff alleged Brady violations and
argued that evidence was withheld at his criminal trial. Id. at 6. 	Plaintiff claimed that he made
these things known on the record during court proceedings. Id. at 7.
Plaintiff names as defendants in his Complaint: 	Keith Schroeder, Reno County District
Judge; and Brian Eugene Koch, Reno County District Attorney. For relief, Plaintiff sought to have
his state criminal case dismissed, $800,000 in damages, and to have a review done of cases
prosecuted by Defendants to determine if there were civil rights violations. Id. at 7.
The Court ordered Plaintiff to show good cause why the Court is not prohibited from
hearing Plaintiff’s claims under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). The Court noted that
an online Kansas District Court Records Search showed that Plaintiff’s state criminal proceedings
are pending. See State v. Adams, Case No. RN-2022-CR-000764 (District Court of Reno County,
Kansas) (filed November 14, 2022). The docket reflects that Plaintiff was convicted after a jury
trial and is awaiting sentencing. Id. A motion to continue sentencing was filed on November 26,
2025, due to Plaintiff obtaining new counsel after the trial. Id. 	On December 12, 2025, the Court
Services Officer filed an Adult Order to Arrest and Detain, alleging that Plaintiff violated the
conditions of his bond supervision. Id. A Motion to Revoke Bond was filed by Defendant Koch
on December 15, 2025. Id.
Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s MOSC regarding Younger abstention. Instead,
Plaintiff filed a 3-page complaint, possibly intended as an amended complaint. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff
does not allege a speedy trial violation or the inability to confront his accusers in the new
complaint, but otherwise continues to make the same claims regarding his state court criminal
proceedings—suborned perjury, the search warrant lacked probable cause, and the withholding of
exculpatory evidence. (Doc. 5, at 2.)
Case 5:26-cv-03053-JWL Document 6 Filed 05/06/26 Page 2 of 5

3
The Court found in the MOSC that “[t]o the extent Plaintiff seeks a stay regarding his claim
for money damages, he is directed to show cause why his claims against the Defendants should
not be dismissed based on judicial and prosecutorial immunity.” (Doc. 4, at 8.) Plaintiff continues
to name the state court prosecutor and judge as defendants, and adds Reno County, Kansas, as a
defendant. (Doc. 5, at 1.) Plaintiff states that Reno County “is a governmental entity responsible
for the policies, practices, and supervision of its officials.” Id. Plaintiff makes the bald claim the
Reno County “maintained policies, customs, or failed to train employees adequately, resulting in
constitutional violations.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff fails to set forth any policies or customs that allegedly
resulted in his constitutional violations. He has also failed to allege how the county is responsible
for training or supervising the state court judge and prosecutor. 	Kansas state law clearly
characterizes the district courts as arms of the state government—part of a unified judicial branch
along with the Kansas Supreme Court and Kansas Court of Appeals. Wilkins v. Skiles, No. 02–
3190, 2005 WL 627962, at *4 (D. Kan. March 4, 2005); see generally, KAN. CONST. art 3.
District court judges are state officials. Schroeder v. Kochanowski, 311 F. Supp. 2d 1241, 1256
(D. Kan. 2004), see also Sigg v. Dist. Court of Allen Cty., Kan., No. 11-2625-JTM, 2012 WL
941144, at *4 (D. Kan. March 20, 2012) (district court judge is a state official and official capacity
claims against judge for money damages are barred). A county district attorney’s office, “to the
extent that it is an entity that can be sued, is a branch or agency of the state under applicable law
and, therefore, is also immune under the Eleventh Amendment.” Collins v. McClain, 207 F. Supp.
2d 1260, 1263 (D. Kan. 2002) (citations omitted); see also White v. Blackwell, 343 F. App’x 341,
342 (10th Cir. 2009) (damage claim against county prosecutor in her official capacity barred by
Eleventh Amendment immunity); McCormick v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Shawnee Cty., 24 P.3d
Case 5:26-cv-03053-JWL Document 6 Filed 05/06/26 Page 3 of 5

4
739, 746 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001) (“In Kansas, district attorneys are officers of the State.”); see, e.g.,
Carroll v. Totaro, 2022 WL 16749032, at *5 (E.D. Pa. 2022) (finding that the county does not
employ or supervise the state court judge, and the county cannot be sued for the alleged failure to
train the judge).
The Court found in the MOSC that Plaintiff has been convicted in his state court criminal
proceedings and is awaiting sentencing. The Court noted that to the extent Plaintiff challenges the
validity of his conviction or sentence in his state criminal case, his federal claim must be presented
in habeas corpus, and any request for money damages may be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477, 482 (1994). 	Before a plaintiff may proceed in a federal civil action for monetary
damages based upon an invalid conviction or sentence, he must show that his conviction or
sentence has been overturned, reversed, or otherwise called into question. Heck, 512 U.S. 477. If
a judgment on Plaintiff’s claim in this case would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction,
the claim may be barred by Heck. In Heck v. Humphrey, the United States Supreme Court held
that when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 action, the district court must consider the
following:
whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity
of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless
the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been
invalidated.
Id. at 487. 	In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a § 1983 damages claim that necessarily
implicates the validity of the plaintiff’s conviction or sentence is not cognizable unless and until
the conviction or sentence is overturned, either on appeal, in a collateral proceeding, or by
executive order. Id. at 486–87. As set forth above, Plaintiff has been convicted and is awaiting
sentencing. 	The current docket in his state court criminal case reflects that on May 4, 2026,
Plaintiff filed: a Motion for Dispositional and/or Durational Departure and Concurrent Sentences;
Case 5:26-cv-03053-JWL Document 6 Filed 05/06/26 Page 4 of 5

5
an Amended Posttrial Motion for New Trial; and an Amended and Renewed Motion for Judgment
of Acquittal/Directed Verdict. See State v. Adams, Case No. RN-2022-CR-000764 (District Court
of Reno County, Kansas). Plaintiff has not shown that his conviction has been overturned.
Plaintiff has failed to respond to the MOSC and his newly-filed complaint does not address
the deficiencies noted in the MOSC. Plaintiff has failed to address Younger abstention, has failed
to request a stay pending resolution of his state court criminal proceedings, and has failed to
address the Heck bar. The Court’s MOSC provides that “[f]ailure to respond by the deadline may
result in dismissal of this matter without further notice.” (Doc. 4, at 8.)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated May 6, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:26-cv-03053-JWL Document 6 Filed 05/06/26 Page 5 of 5