Ryan Christopher Cheatham v. (FNU) Gilkerson, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas issued a memorandum and order to show cause in a prisoner civil-rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court dismissed the claims against Defendants Crawford and Johnson and directed Plaintiff to show cause why his claims concerning court access, retaliation, due process, and equal protection should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was given until January 2, 2026, to respond.

Holdings

1. The court granted Plaintiff's motion to dismiss his claims against Crawford and Johnson.
2. A prisoner asserting denial of access to the courts must allege and prove actual injury or prejudice resulting from the defendants' conduct, including frustration or impediment of a nonfrivolous claim concerning the prisoner's conviction or conditions of confinement.
3. A prisoner asserting First Amendment retaliation must plead facts showing constitutionally protected activity, an injury that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing that activity, and adverse action substantially motivated by the protected conduct; conclusory allegations and unsupported assertions of retaliatory motive are insufficient.
4. Conclusory allegations and labels asserting due process or equal-protection violations, without supporting factual allegations, do not state a claim for relief.
5. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must dismiss a prisoner's complaint or portion of a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Crawford and Johnson should be dismissed at Plaintiff's request.
2. Whether Plaintiff adequately alleged an actual injury sufficient to state a First Amendment access-to-the-courts claim.
3. Whether Plaintiff adequately alleged the elements and retaliatory motive required for a First Amendment retaliation claim.
4. Whether Plaintiff's conclusory allegations stated viable due process and equal-protection claims.
5. Whether the complaint should be dismissed under the screening standards applicable to prisoner complaints.

Disposition

other