Aaebo-Akhan v. Kansas Vital Statistics et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
AKOSUA AAEBO-AKHAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
KANSAS VITAL STATISTICS et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-2544-TC-ADM
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Akosua Aaebo-Akhan (“plaintiff”) brings this action against Kansas Vital
Statistics, Janai Reed, Marc L. Resnick, and Kimberly Clark (collectively, “defendants”). The
court previously granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), but directed the U.S.
Marshals Service to withhold service of process until the court screened the complaint for merit
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (ECF 7.) As discussed in further detail below, upon screening,
the court now recommends that the district judge dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.
I. LEGAL STANDARDS
When a plaintiff proceeds IFP, the court may screen the complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The court must dismiss the complaint if it determines that the action “(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)(B). The purpose of
§ 1915(e)(2) is to “discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon,
baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate.” Buchheit v. Green, 705 F.3d 1157,
1161 (10th Cir. 2012).
Case 2:25-cv-02544-JWB-ADM Document 29 Filed 06/01/26 Page 1 of 5

2
Dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim is governed by the same
standard that applies to motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). To withstand dismissal, “a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007)).
In reviewing a pro se complaint, the court construes her pleadings liberally and holds them
“to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.” Johnson v. Johnson, 466 F.3d 1213,
1214 (10th Cir. 2006). However, a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings are judged by the same legal
standards that apply to all litigants and a pro se plaintiff must abide by the applicable rules of court.
Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). The court does not “assume the
role of advocate for the pro se litigant,” crafting legal theories for the plaintiff or supplying factual
allegations to support the plaintiff’s claims. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff still bears “the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could
be based.” Id.
II. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has filed four total cases in this court: Case Nos. 25-2500, 25-2502, 25-2506, and
25-2544. The court dismissed her complaint in Case No. 25-2500 and entered judgment against
her on January 16, 2026. (Case No. 25-2500, ECF 31, 32.)1 In her current complaint, the first ten
pages appear to be a partial copy of the court’s form civil complaint, but nothing of substance is
alleged therein other than the parties’ names and plaintiff’s jurisdictional grounds. (ECF 1.)
1 Plaintiff has appealed the judgment to the Tenth Circuit. (Case No. 25-2500, ECF 33.)
Case 2:25-cv-02544-JWB-ADM Document 29 Filed 06/01/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Several pages are blank. (Id.) The next 30 pages are handwritten and difficult to decipher, and
she attaches a one-page exhibit that is her driver’s license. (ECF 1-1, 1-2.) All the court can tell
is that plaintiff appears to allege similar facts as her complaint in Case No. 25-2500—namely, that
plaintiff is a lifelong victim of sex and human trafficking having been human trafficked since birth
due to meeting specific indigenous Akan American genetic criteria by the sex and human
traffickers who refer to themselves as the white Jewish mafia, that she and her children fathered
by Kwesi Akhan are still victims of sex and human trafficking, and that her intellectual property
was stolen. (ECF 1-1.) Plaintiff also appears to allege that her sex and human traffickers use
fraudulent birth certificates to enslave indigenous Akan Americans. (ECF 1-1, at 7-8.)
Plaintiff’s complaint, which is 40 pages long, does not satisfy basic pleading standards. A
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction” and
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R.
CIV. P. 8. “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Id. at Rule 8(d)(1). This is not
a floor but “a ceiling (the complaint must be no more than ‘a short and plain statement’).” Frazier
v. Ortiz, No. 06-1286, 2007 WL 10765, at *2 (10th Cir. Jan. 3, 2007) (citing New Home Appliance
Ctr., Inc. v. Thompson, 250 F.2d 881, 883 (10th Cir. 1957)). Only a “generalized statement of the
facts” is “permissible.” Id. Failure to comply with these pleading requirements can result in
dismissal sua sponte. Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 and n.2
(2007) (“And, to be sure, a failure to satisfy Rule 8 can supply a basis for dismissal: Rule 41(b)
specifically authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failing to comply with any aspect of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”). While pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a pro se
plaintiff must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 8. See Windsor v.
Colorado Dep't of Corr., 9 F. App’x 967, 969 (10th Cir. 2001).
Case 2:25-cv-02544-JWB-ADM Document 29 Filed 06/01/26 Page 3 of 5

4
A complaint has two purposes: to provide the opposing parties fair notice of the claims
against them and to allow a court to determine whether a plaintiff is entitled to relief. Monument
Builders of Greater Kan. City, Inc. v. Am. Cemetery Ass’n of Kan., 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir.
1989). A complaint that is unnecessarily long and includes “a morass of irrelevancies” thwarts
this basic purpose. Baker v. City of Loveland, 686 F. App'x 619, 620 (10th Cir. 2017). Here,
plaintiff’s complaint is so lengthy and indecipherable that it does not provide fair notice of what
causes of action she is asserting against the named defendants. Nor can the court determine
whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief she seeks. Her complaint appears to be largely duplicative
of her prior case that the court dismissed. (See Case No. 25-2500, ECF 1, 25, 31.) So, for the
same reasons the court dismissed her claims in that case, they are likely also subject to dismissal
in this one. But because the complaint is so lengthy and indecipherable, the court cannot discern
any way in which her complaint is somehow distinguishable from the reasons the court dismissed
her prior case or meaningfully distinguishable from the two other cases plaintiff has filed in this
court. All of this unquestionably thwarts the purposes of notice pleading and fails to comply with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The court therefore recommends that the district judge dismiss
the complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8(a).
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the court recommends that the district judge dismiss this case pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a) and
therefore fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
* * * * *
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and D. KAN. RULE 72.1.4(b),
plaintiff may file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after
Case 2:25-cv-02544-JWB-ADM Document 29 Filed 06/01/26 Page 4 of 5

5
being served with a copy. If plaintiff fails to file objections within the fourteen-day period, no
appellate review of the factual and legal determinations in this Report and Recommendation will
be allowed by any court. See In re Key Energy Res. Inc., 230 F.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (10th Cir.
2000).
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for the
reasons set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk’s office mail a copy of this Report and
Recommendation to plaintiff via regular mail and certified mail, return receipt requested.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated June 1, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Angel D. Mitchell
Angel D. Mitchell
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02544-JWB-ADM Document 29 Filed 06/01/26 Page 5 of 5