Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas screened a pro se prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging conspiracy, procedural due process violations, and equal protection violations arising from his placement and continued confinement in segregation. The court concluded that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim against any defendant and granted the plaintiff until February 17, 2026, to file a complete amended complaint. The court deferred ruling on the plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint stated a plausible Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim.
- Whether the complaint stated a plausible procedural due process claim based on Plaintiff's placement and continued confinement in segregation.
- Whether the complaint stated a plausible § 1983 conspiracy claim where the complaint did not plausibly allege an underlying constitutional deprivation.
- Whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to file an amended complaint curing the pleading deficiencies.
Holdings
- The complaint failed to state a plausible equal protection claim because it did not identify any similarly situated individual who was treated differently from Plaintiff.
- The complaint failed to state a plausible procedural due process claim because Plaintiff did not identify a protected liberty interest of which he was deprived without adequate process.
- The complaint failed to state a plausible conspiracy claim because it did not plausibly allege an underlying constitutional deprivation.
- Plaintiff was granted until February 17, 2026, to file a complete and proper amended complaint curing the identified deficiencies.
Key quotations
“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.” (at Screening Standards)
“A plausible claim for relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” (at Screening Standards)
“Even liberally construing the complaint, it does not identify any other individual who is similarly situated to Plaintiff but was treated differently.” (at Count III discussion)
“Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to be housed in a particular security classification.” (at Count II discussion)
“Since Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged an underlying constitutional violation, he has not stated a plausible claim for relief based on conspiracy liability.” (at Count I discussion)
Factual background
Ryan Christopher Cheatham, a Kansas state prisoner, alleged that beginning September 4, 2024, officials connected with Larned State Correctional Facility placed him in segregation after he apparently committed battery of a correctional officer and enforced a policy requiring at least one year in segregation. He alleged that officials failed to release him after a segregation review, that a disciplinary appeal was remanded for clarification and later approved, and that he was not informed of the one-year policy until after placement. He asserted conspiracy, procedural due process, and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims, but did not identify a similarly situated inmate treated differently or a protected liberty interest denied without adequate process.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed the action challenging his placement and continued confinement in segregation and alleging conspiracy, procedural due process, and equal protection violations. The court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B), found each count deficient, deferred ruling on Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, and ordered Plaintiff to file a complete amended complaint by February 17, 2026. The court warned that failure to amend would result in dismissal without further notice.
Remand instructions
Plaintiff must file a complete and proper amended complaint on the required court-approved form by February 17, 2026. The amended complaint must identify the constitutional right supporting each count, allege specific facts showing each named defendant's personal participation, include all claims and facts to be pursued, and not incorporate the original complaint or exhibits by reference. If Plaintiff fails to amend timely, the action will be dismissed without further notice.