Dunham v. Secret Service

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JACOB DUNHAM,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 26-1274-JWB
SECRET SERVICE,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Magistrate Judge Brooks G. Severson’s report and
recommendation (“R&R”) that recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state
a claim. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff has filed no objection to the R&R and the time for doing so has now
passed. For the reasons stated herein, the court ADOPTS the R&R and this case is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
On September 9, 2026, Plaintiff Jacob Dunham filed a pro se complaint against the United
States Secret Service alleging destruction of property, false death reporting for the purpose of
harm, illegal cellphone tapping, harassment and embarrassment, gangstalking, forgery, and
destruction of evidence. 	(Doc. 1.) 	He seeks $50,000,000 in damages and requests both an
investigation and legal representation. (Id.) Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was
granted by the magistrate judge. (Doc. 4.)
Here, Magistrate Judge Severson screened Mr. Dunham’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and recommends that the court dismiss the complaint on the basis that Mr.
Dunham asserted wrongs without describing the underlying conduct or the Secret Service’s
involvement; cannot bring suit against the Secret Service; and did not present his claims to the
Case 6:26-cv-01274-JWB-BGS Document 6 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 3

2
appropriate federal agencies before filing this action. (Doc. 5.) The court must conduct a de novo
review of those portions of the R&R to which an objection has been made. 	See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). 	Because Mr. Dunham has made no objections, the court “may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.
When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the court must dismiss the case at any time if
it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant. 	28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 	The
failure-to-state-a-claim standard is the same one that governs a motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). The court accepts well
pleaded facts as true and draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, but the complaint
must contain enough factual matter to state a plausible claim. Id.; see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007).
Because Mr. Dunham proceeds pro se, the court construes his filings liberally and holds
them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hall v. Bellmon,
935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). But that liberal construction does not permit the court to
assume the role of advocate or supply facts needed to support a claim. Id. The Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure still require a short and plain statement of the grounds for jurisdiction and a short
and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)–(2). A pro se plaintiff
may satisfy the latter requirement by explaining what each defendant did, when the defendant did
it, how the conduct harmed the plaintiff, and what specific legal right the plaintiff believes was
violated. Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007).
Here, Mr. Dunham provides no facts to support his claims. (See generally Doc. 1.) 	He
also identifies no waiver provision permitting him to seek damages from the Secret Service. See
Case 6:26-cv-01274-JWB-BGS Document 6 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Normandy Apartments, Ltd. v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 554 F.3d 1290, 1295 (10th Cir.
2009). Moreover, to the extent that Mr. Dunham alleges constitutional violations, he cannot seek
money damages against the Secret Service for such violations. See F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S.
471, 473 (1994). Nor can he prevail on a tort action under the Federal Tort Claims Act; that law
permits certain tort claims against the United States only, not federal agencies, and requires that
the plaintiff present a claim to the appropriate federal agency, which Mr. Dunham does not allege
he did. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2675(a), 2679(b)(1). For similar reasons, he cannot prevail on a claim
of willful violation of federal electronic-communications and surveillance laws. 	See 18 U.S.C.
§ 2712(a)–(b).
Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the R&R and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr.
Dunham’s complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 7th day of October, 2026.
s/ John Broomes
JOHN W. BROOMES
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 6:26-cv-01274-JWB-BGS Document 6 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 3