Tony Tremayne Lewis v. Jeff Zmuda, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ordered prisoner-plaintiff Tony Tremayne Lewis to show cause why his § 1983 complaint should not be dismissed and permitted him to file an amended complaint. The court addressed claims concerning prison disciplinary proceedings, conditions of confinement, retaliation, grievances, discovery, and commissary restrictions, identifying statute-of-limitations and pleading deficiencies. The document is a memorandum and order to show cause, not a final dismissal decision.

Holdings

1. Counts I and II appeared barred by Kansas's two-year statute of limitations because the alleged disciplinary violations occurred in December 2022 and Lewis knew of them by January 11, 2023, while the complaint was filed on December 12, 2025.
2. A prisoner complaint must be dismissed at screening when it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a plausible claim, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant.
3. The allegations concerning the challenged cells, missing amenities, short duration of placement, and related conditions did not plausibly allege a sufficiently serious deprivation or deliberate indifference.
4. Lewis had no constitutional right to dictate the facility or classification in which he was housed, absent facts showing an atypical and significant hardship.
5. Dissatisfaction with grievance responses, failure to answer grievances, or failure to investigate grievances does not itself state a constitutional violation when a grievance procedure exists and was used.
6. Lewis's retaliation allegations were insufficient because they were conclusory and did not allege specific facts showing protected activity, a chilling injury, and a retaliatory motive that was the but-for cause of the adverse action.
7. An amended complaint may join multiple claims against one defendant and additional defendants only when the Rule 20(a)(2) transaction-or-occurrence and common-question requirements are satisfied.
8. Appointment of counsel was not warranted at this stage and the motion was denied without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Counts I and II were barred by Kansas's two-year statute of limitations.
2. Whether the disciplinary-hearing claims were also repetitious or failed to state a due process claim.
3. Whether the allegations concerning failure to protect and housing conditions stated an Eighth Amendment claim.
4. Whether allegations concerning grievance responses, commissary restrictions, transfers, shower time, mirrors, television, and envelopes stated constitutional claims.
5. Whether the complaint adequately pleaded retaliation under § 1983.
6. Whether the claims and defendants were improperly joined under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20.
7. Whether appointment of counsel was warranted in the civil § 1983 action.

Disposition

other