Dorsey v. Brandt et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MALIK W. DORSEY,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 26-3358-JWL
ALICIA BRANDT, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff and Kansas pretrial detainee Malik W. Dorsey brings this pro se civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is in custody at the Saline County Jail (“SCJ”) in Salina, Kansas and
he has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 5.) The Court has conducted the
statutorily required review of the complaint and identified deficiencies that are set forth below and
that leave the complaint subject to dismissal in its entirety. The Court will grant Plaintiff time in
which to file a complete and proper amended complaint that cures the deficiencies identified in
this order. If he fails to do so, this matter will be dismissed without further prior notice to him.
I. 	Nature of the Matter before the Court
As Defendants in this case, Plaintiff names SCJ Officers Alicia Brandt and (fnu)1
Montgomery. (Doc. 1, p. 1-2.) As the background of the case, Plaintiff alleges that on April 20,
2026 at 2:04 p.m., Defendant Montgomery told him he cannot have a Bible until his request for
one was approved and the following morning, Defendant Brandt told him the same thing. Id. at 2.
In Count I, he alleges that Defendant Brandt violated his rights under the First and Third
Amendments by telling him he could not have a Bible because his request for one had not been
1 The Court uses the designation “(fnu)” to indicate that Officer Montgomery’s first name is unknown. If Plaintiff
discovers Officer Montgomery’s first name, he should include it in the amended complaint.
Case 5:26-cv-03358-JWL Document 6 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 6

2
approved by the captain. Id. at 3. In Count II, he alleges that Defendant Montgomery violated his
rights under the First and Third Amendments by telling him that he can only have a Bible when
administration 	approves 	his 	request. 	Id. 	As 	relief 	in 	this 	case, 	Plaintiff 	seeks
$999,000,000,000,000.00 and an order placing all of Defendants’ assets in his name. Id. at 5.
II. 	Screening Standards
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner and proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court is required by
statute to screen his amended 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). During this screening, the
Court liberally construes this pro se complaint and holds it to “less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” See 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.”
See Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997).
“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 (1988)
(citations omitted); Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1523 (10th Cir. 1992). “[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).
Case 5:26-cv-03358-JWL Document 6 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 6

3
“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more
than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted.)
The Court must determine whether Plaintiff has “nudge[d] his claims across the line from
conceivable to plausible.” See Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 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 his or her burden. Robbins v. Okla., 519 F.3d
1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
III. 	Discussion
This case is subject to dismissal because even liberally construed, it fails to state a plausible
claim that Plaintiff’s First or Third Amendment rights were violated. The Third Amendment states:
“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without consent of the Owner, nor
in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” U.S. Const. Amend. III. In the absence
of any explanation from Plaintiff about how the Defendants’ actions violated the Third
Amendment or how the Third Amendment protects religious rights, the complaint fails to state a
plausible Third Amendment claim. Thus, the Third Amendment claims are subject to dismissal.
Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims, however, can be liberally construed as asserting a
violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, which “protects religious exercises.”
See Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 597 U.S. 507, 523 (2022). “Under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments, inmates are entitled to the reasonable opportunity to pursue their sincerely-held
religious beliefs.” Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1069 (10th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
In order to state a plausible claim that the constitutional right to free exercise of religion was
Case 5:26-cv-03358-JWL Document 6 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 6

4
denied, a prisoner must allege that defendants “substantially burdened his sincerely-held religious
beliefs.” Id. In addition, he “must assert conscious or intentional interference with his free exercise
rights to state a valid claim under § 1983.” Id. at 1070.
Even liberally construing the pro se complaint, Plaintiff does not explain how each
Defendant telling him that he would not be provided a Bible until his request for one was approved
by the appropriate individual substantially burdened Plaintiff’s sincerely-held religious beliefs.
The alleged facts reflect that neither Defendant denied Plaintiff a Bible outright; they merely
informed him that his request was still pending and he could not have one until the request was
approved. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible free exercise claim under the First
Amendment and his First Amendment claims are subject to dismissal.
Finally, the Court notes that the relief Plaintiff seeks in this case is not available to him.
Plaintiff requests monetary relief, but as previously explained to Plaintiff:
Any request for compensatory damages is barred by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e),
because Plaintiff has failed to allege a physical injury. Section 1997e(e) provides
that “[n]o Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail,
prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while
in custody without a prior showing of physical injury or the commission of a sexual
act (as defined in section 2246 of Title 18).” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).
“The plain language of the statute does not permit alteration of its clear
damages restrictions on the basis of the underlying rights being asserted.” Searles
v. Van Bebber, 251 F.3d 869, 876 (10th Cir. 2001). “The statute limits the remedies
available, regardless of the rights asserted, if the only injuries are mental or
emotional.” Id. (citing Robinson v. Page, 170 F.3d 747, 748 (7th Cir.1999)).
Dorsey v. Brandt, 2026 WL 2920009, *2 (D. Kan. Sept. 29, 2026) (unpublished).
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in this case, such relief is barred.
Plaintiff may seek nominal damages, which are damages in name only, trivial sums such as six
cents or $1” that do not purport to compensate for past wrongs” and “are symbolic only.” Utah
Animal Rights Coal. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 371 F.3d 1248, 1264 (10th Cir. 2004) (citation
Case 5:26-cv-03358-JWL Document 6 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 6

5
omitted). He may also seek punitive damages, but he must allege sufficient facts to show “conduct
which is ‘shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or [that] involves reckless or callous
indifference to the federally protected rights of others.’” See Searles v. Van Bebber, 251 F.3d 869,
879 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983)).
Plaintiff’s request for an order placing Defendants’ assets in his name is subject to
dismissal. As this Court has repeatedly informed Plaintiff, “the Court knows of no authority under
which it could grant such relief in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.” See, e.g., Dorsey v. United States of
America, 2026 WL 2483233, *5 (D. Kan. Aug. 25, 2026) (unpublished) (citation omitted). Unless
Plaintiff provides specific legal authority that would allow the Court to grant this type of relief,
future requests for a transfer of defendants’ assets to his name will be summarily dismissed.
IV. 	Amended Complaint Required
For the reasons set forth above, this action is subject to dismissal in its entirety for failure
to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Plaintiff is given the opportunity to file a complete
and proper amended complaint upon the required, court-approved form that cures all the
deficiencies discussed herein. He is advised that an amended complaint does not supplement the
initial complaint; an amended complaint completely replaces the initial complaint. Therefore, any
claims or factual allegations not included in the amended complaint will not be before the Court.
Plaintiff may not refer to or incorporate by reference his initial complaint. The amended complaint
must contain all allegations, claims, and exhibits that Plaintiff intends to pursue in this action,
including those to be retained from his initial complaint.
Plaintiff must write the number of this case (26-3358) at the top of the first page of his
amended complaint. He must allege sufficient facts to show that each defendant personally
participated in a federal constitutional violation. For each Count in the amended complaint,
Case 5:26-cv-03358-JWL Document 6 Filed 10/09/26 Page 5 of 6

6
Plaintiff must clearly identify the constitutional right or rights he believes was violated and he
must allege sufficient facts for the Court to conclude that if the facts alleged are true, he has stated
a plausible claim for relief. He must follow the instructions on the required, court-approved
complaint form and set forth the information requested therein and he must seek only relief
available in this case.
If Plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint, the Court will proceed on the current
complaint, which will be dismissed without further prior notice to Plaintiff for failure to state a
claim on which relief could be granted. If Plaintiff timely files an amended complaint, the Court
will conduct the statutorily required review of the amended complaint and issue further orders as
necessary.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff is granted until and
including November 11, 2026, to file a complete and proper amended complaint that cures all the
deficiencies identified in this order. If Plaintiff fails to do so, this matter will be dismissed without
further prior notice to Plaintiff. The clerk is directed to send 1983 forms and instructions to
Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: This 9th day of October, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:26-cv-03358-JWL Document 6 Filed 10/09/26 Page 6 of 6