Gillespie v. Zmuda et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
BRADLEY GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 26-1073-JWL
JEFF ZMUDA, et al.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 3, 2026, in the District Court
of Butler County, Kansas. (Doc. 1–1.) The matter was removed to this Court on March 27, 2026,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. 	(Doc. 1.) 	Plaintiff is incarcerated at the El Dorado
Correctional Facility in El Dorado, Kansas.
Plaintiff filed this action in state court, and Defendants removed the action to this Court.
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner and his Complaint seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity, it is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) (“The Court shall review . . . as soon as practical after docketing, a
complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer
or employee of a governmental entity.”); see also Crosby v. U.S. Attorney’s Office, 2020 WL
1271825, at *3 (D. Kan. 2020) (screening amended complaint after removal from state court);
King v. Hill, 2022 WL 1185124, at *3 (S.D. Ill. 2022) (finding that claims properly removed to
the federal court were subject to screening under Section 1915A); Biron v. Carvajal, 2021 WL
3047250, at *35 (D. Minn. 2021) (stating that “the Court agrees with Defendants that cases
removed from state court are subject to screening under § 1915A” and “courts in this District have
Case 6:26-cv-01073-JWL Document 18 Filed 04/01/26 Page 1 of 3

2
done so”); Johnson v. Bedwell, 2017 WL 4539918, at *1 (S.D. Ind. 2017) (“Although the filing
fee was paid at the time this action was removed to this Court, this action is still subject to screening
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.”).
The Court stays the answer deadline pending this Court’s screening of Plaintiff’s
Complaint under § 1915A. The Court will enter an order after screening is complete.
On March 12, 2026,—prior to the removal of the case to this Court—Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in state court. See Doc. 1–1, at 93–94. It does not appear
that the motion was ruled on prior to removal. Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting Defendants
from censoring his mail, interfering with his access to the courts, and retaliating against him.
(Doc. 1–1, at 94.) 	Plaintiff filed this same motion in the case that he filed in this Court on
December 5, 2025. See Gillespie v. Holthaus, Case No. 25-3265-JWL.
The Court denied this same Motion for Temporary Restraining Order that Plaintiff filed in
Case No. 25-3265. In a Memorandum and Order entered on March 13, 2026, the Court denied the
motion finding that “Plaintiff has not met his burden to make a heightened showing that entry of
a TRO is warranted. He has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits such that his
right to relief is clear and unequivocal.” Id. at Doc. 12, at 19. The Court denies the current motion
based on the same reasoning set forth in denying Plaintiff’s motion in Case No. 25-3265. Id. at
16–19.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 1–1, at 93–94) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise
respond to the Complaint is stayed pending further order of the Court.
Case 6:26-cv-01073-JWL Document 18 Filed 04/01/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated April 1, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 6:26-cv-01073-JWL Document 18 Filed 04/01/26 Page 3 of 3