James v. Wyandotte County, Kansas et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
TASHEE MARIE JAMES,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3224-JWL
WYANDOTTE COUNTY, KANSAS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Tashee Marie James, who is currently incarcerated at the Wyandotte County
Detention Center in Kansas City, Kansas, filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(Doc. 1.) Her fee status is pending. This matter comes now before this Court on Plaintiff’s timely
amended complaint and her supplement to the amended complaint, which were submitted on
October 24, 2025. (Docs. 5 and 6.) The Court has conducted the statutorily required screening of
the amended complaint and, for the reasons explained below, will dismiss this matter without
prejudice. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s pending motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 7)
will be denied as moot.
I. The Initial Complaint
Plaintiff filed her initial complaint in this matter on October 14, 2025. (Doc. 1.) She named
countless 	Defendants, 	some 	of 	which 	she 	identified 	only 	through 	general 	references 	to
“employees” of various entities, including as a Dallas, Georgia hospital; state courts; federal
courts; municipal courts; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the Georgia Bureau of
Investigation. Id. at 1. Similarly, in the portion of the complaint form for briefly stating the
background of her case, Plaintiff listed multiple locations and made general assertions, including
Case 5:25-cv-03224-JWL Document 8 Filed 10/28/25 Page 1 of 7

2
that she was targeted, framed, lied about, stalked, railroaded, not compensated, and deprived of
work in at least three states. Id. at 3-4. The Counts asserted in the complaint were equally
incomprehensible, as was the relief sought in this matter. See id. at 4-6.
II. Screening
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner, the Court was required by statute to screen her complaint
and to dismiss it or any portion of it that is frivolous, fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seeks relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and (b);
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). “To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of
a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged
deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 48-49 (1988) (citations omitted); Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1523 (10th Cir.
1992). The Court liberally construes a pro se complaint and applies “less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In addition, the
Court accepts all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true. Anderson v. Blake, 469 F.3d
910, 913 (10th Cir. 2006). On the other hand, the Court “will not supply additional factual
allegations to round out a plaintiff’s complaint or construct a legal theory on plaintiff’s behalf.”
Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997).
“[W]hen the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement
to relief,” dismissal is appropriate. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007).
Furthermore, a pro se litigant’s “conclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are
insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be based.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110
(10th Cir. 1991). The Court must determine whether Plaintiff has “nudge[d her]claims across the
line from conceivable to plausible.” See Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir.
Case 5:25-cv-03224-JWL Document 8 Filed 10/28/25 Page 2 of 7

3
2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Plausible” in this context refers “to the scope of the
allegations in a complaint: if they are so general that they encompass a wide swath of conduct,
much of it innocent,” then the plaintiff has not met her burden. Robbins v. Okla., 519 F.3d 1242,
1247 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Twombly, at 550 U.S. at 570).
When the Court reviewed the initial complaint under these standards, it determined that the
complaint was subject to dismissal in its entirety for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, on October 16, 2025, the Court issued a memorandum and
order (“M&O”) that explained the requirements of Rule 8 and directed Plaintiff to file a complete
and proper amended complaint that complies with Rule 8. (Doc. 4, p. 1-6.) Specifically, the M&O
stated:
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure1 requires that a complaint
“contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [the plaintiff] is
entitled to relief.” The purpose of Rule 8 “is ‘to give opposing parties fair notice of
the basis of the claim against them so that they may respond to the complaint, and
to apprise the court of sufficient allegations to allow it to conclude, if the allegations
are proved, that the claimant has a legal right to relief.’” Monument Builders of
Greater Kan. City, Inc. v. Am. Cemetery Ass’n of Kan., 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th
Cir. 1998) (quoting Perington Wholesale, Inc. v. Burger King Corp., 631 F.2d
1369, 1371 (10th Cir. 1979)).
“[A]ll that is necessary is that the claim for relief be stated with
brevity, conciseness, and clarity, a standard articulated many times
over by federal courts throughout the country.” 5 Charles Alan
Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1215,
at 165 (3d ed.2004). This Court has upheld such a standard of
brevity and clarity in pleadings. See Blazer v. Black, 196 F.2d 139,
144 (10th Cir.1952) (“[T]he only permissible pleading is a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief on any legally sustainable grounds.”); Knox v. First Sec. Bank
of Utah, 196 F.2d 112, 117 (10th Cir.1952) (“The purpose of [Rule
8] is to eliminate prolixity in pleading and to achieve brevity,
simplicity, and clarity.”). A Rule 8 pleading is not the proper place
1 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to suits brought by prisoners. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th
Cir. 2007). Pro se litigants must “follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” See Kay v. Bemis,
500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007); McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (federal rules apply to all
litigants, including prisoners lacking access to counsel).
Case 5:25-cv-03224-JWL Document 8 Filed 10/28/25 Page 3 of 7

4
for the plaintiff to plead all of the evidence or to fully argue the
claims. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512–513 (2002).
Chavez v. Huerfano Cnty., 195 F. App’x 728, 729-30 (10th Cir. Sept. 1, 2006)
(unpublished).
“It is not the role of the court to sort through a lengthy complaint to construct
the plaintiff’s case.” See Chavez, 195 Fed. App’x. at 730. Although the complaint
in this matter is a mere 8 pages long, the information therein does not clearly state
a claim for relief against a particular Defendant. “To state a claim, a complaint
‘must ‘make clear exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom.’” Stone v.
Albert, 338 Fed. Appx. 757, 759 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Robbins, 519 F.3d at
1250). “[I]t is incumbent upon a plaintiff to ‘identify specific actions taken by
particular defendants’ in order to make out a viable § 1983 . . . claim.” Pahls v.
Thomas, 718 F.3d 1210, 1226 (10th Cir. 2013). Even when liberally construed, the
pro se complaint in this matter fails to do so. The Court is unable to determine the
Defendants Plaintiff wishes to name in this case, the nature of her claims against
those Defendants, the facts that support each claim, or the relief she seeks. Thus,
the complaint would not give opposing parties fair notice of the basis of the claim
or claims against them and it fails to comply with Rule 8.
(Doc. 4, p. 4-6.)
In the interest of efficiency, the M&O also explained the rules on joining multiple
defendants and multiple claims in a single action, Id. at 6-8. Plaintiff was granted time in which to
file a complete and proper amended complaint upon the court-approved form that cures the
deficiencies identified in the M&O. Id. at 5-6, 8-9. She was cautioned, however, that “[i]f Plaintiff
fails to timely submit an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8, this matter will be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Id. at 6. Plaintiff has timely filed an
amended complaint (Doc. 5) and a supplement to the amended complaint (Doc. 6).
III. The Amended Complaint (Doc. 5) and Supplement (Doc. 6)
To her credit, Plaintiff’s amended complaint is much narrower in scope. She names as
Defendants in the amended complaint: the Paulding County Adult Detention Center in Dallas,
Georgia; Deputy Brandon Cunningham, who works at the Paulding County Adult Detention
Center; Lieutenant Henderson of the Paulding County Sheriff’s Office; and all employees of the
Case 5:25-cv-03224-JWL Document 8 Filed 10/28/25 Page 4 of 7

5
Newton County, Georgia Sheriff’s Office and Detention Center. (Doc. 5, p. 1-3.) Unfortunately,
the remainder of the amended complaint is not as clear. Count I appears to assert a claim of assault
that perhaps occurred in 2020 in Newton County, but the facts alleged in support of Count I involve
a woman Plaintiff dated who allegedly worked with Georgia law enforcement to illegally gain
access to Plaintiff’s bank account and frame Plaintiff for a non-violent felony. See id. at 3.
Count II appears to assert illegal arrest, bank fraud, “illegal damage to property [and] body
parts,” false statements, fabricated facts, and that Plaintiff was framed. Id. The facts asserted in
support of Count II further confuse matters, as Plaintiff generally refers to a broken left ankle; the
illegal repossession of her 2018 Malibu; the theft of her jewelry, her birth certificate, and her social
security card; and she also mentions taxes filed in 2020 without her consent and the release of
confidential documents in 2008 and 2009. Id. Count III is similarly broad in scope, alleging an
illegal prosecution in Newton County; Plaintiff’s 2019 arrival in Atlanta, Georgia; and excessive
force by law enforcement, among other things. Id. at 4. As relief, Plaintiff seeks an appeal, a new
trial, expungement, reimbursement of money she earned between June 2019 and January 2021, the
return of money related to the illegally filed taxes, compensation for a false house arrest in 2021,
and legal fees incurred in Paulding County and Cobb County, Georgia. Id. at 5.
The Court has carefully reviewed the supplemental documents Plaintiff filed with her
amended complaint (Doc. 6) and finds no clarification therein. To the contrary, Plaintiff’s
supplement appears to attempt to identify additional defendants and allege facts in support of
claims not articulated in the amended complaint. It is also largely comprised of run-on sentences,
which leave the Court unable to understand the relevance of Plaintiff’s assertions.
Case 5:25-cv-03224-JWL Document 8 Filed 10/28/25 Page 5 of 7

6
III. Discussion
Even liberally construing the pro se amended complaint and taking all factual allegations
therein as true, it fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The factual
allegations in the amended complaint and the supplemental documents leave the Court unable to
determine the identity of the Defendants named in this case, the federal violations Plaintiff intends
to assert in each Count, or the facts being asserted in support of each Count. These are the same
deficiencies that left the initial complaint subject to dismissal in its entirety. Although this Court
has the discretion to allow Plaintiff another opportunity to file a complaint that does not violate
Rule 8, it declines to do so. See Jensen v. West Jordan City, 968 F.3d 1187, 1202 (10th Cir. 2020)
(explaining that refusing leave to amend is justified when there is “‘failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed’”). Rather, this matter will be dismissed for failure to comply
with Rule 8 and failure to state a plausible claim on which relief could be granted.
The dismissal of this matter will be without prejudice, which means that if Plaintiff wishes
to file another civil rights action based on the events or actions alleged in this matter, the dismissal
of this case will not, by itself, prevent her from doing so. The Court notes, however, that the District
of Kansas does not appear to be the proper venue for the claims in the amended complaint, so if
Plaintiff reasserts the same claims in a subsequent civil rights action brought in this Court, they
may be subject to dismissal for improper venue. See Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1216-17
(10th Cir. 2006) (discussing dismissal for improper venue during initial screening phase of a
prisoner complaint).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action may be brought in a judicial district where any
defendant resides, a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred,
or, if no district meets those criteria, a district in which a defendant is subject to the court’s personal
Case 5:25-cv-03224-JWL Document 8 Filed 10/28/25 Page 6 of 7

7
jurisdiction in the action. To the best of the Court’s ability to understand the amended complaint,
no Defendant named therein resides in the District of Kansas, none of the events giving rise to the
claims occurred in the District of Kansas, and the events underlying the claims occurred in
Georgia. Thus, if Plaintiff files a civil rights action in this Court that raises the claims in the
amended complaint, any such case may be subject to dismissal for improper venue or transfer to
the appropriate venue, if transfer is in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that this action is dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a plausible claim on which relief could be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. 7) is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated October 28, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-03224-JWL Document 8 Filed 10/28/25 Page 7 of 7