Jackson v. Lockridge et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DURAYLE JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3013-JWL
EMMIT LOCKRIDGE, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Durayle Jackson, brings this pro se civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s claims are based on incidents
occurring during his detention at the Wyandotte County Jail in Kansas City, Kansas (“WCJ”). In
response to the Court’s February 11, 2025 Memorandum and Order to Show Cause (Doc. 7),
Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) on March 7, 2025. On March 25, 2025, the
Court entered a Memorandum and Order (Doc. 9) (“M&O”) ordering Plaintiff to show good cause
why his claims against Defendant Lockridge and his claims asserting a hate crime, an equal
protection claim, a § 1985(3) claim, and his First Amendment right to assemble claim, should not
be dismissed for the reasons stated in the M&O. 	Plaintiff responded, and on May 1, 2025, the
Court entered a Memorandum and Order (Doc. 12) dismissing those claims for failure to state a
claim.
The Court’s M&O also found that the proper processing of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
and privacy claims could not be achieved without additional information from appropriate WCJ
officials and ordered the officials to submit a Martinez Report. The Martinez Report (Docs. 22,
28) (the “Report”) was filed, and the Court entered a Memorandum and Order (Doc. 29)
(“M&O II) finding that the Court was “unable to resolve the factual disputes at this stage of the
Case 5:25-cv-03013-EFM-JBW Document 36 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 3

2
proceedings and find[ing] that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and privacy claims survive screening
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.” (Doc. 29, at 12.)
The Court also found that Plaintiff’s causes of action under Kansas law for invasion of
privacy based on false light publicity, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and defamation,
were subject to dismissal. Id. at 12–16. Plaintiff was ordered to show good cause why his state
law claims should not be dismissed for the reasons stated in the M&O II. Id. at 16. This matter is
before the Court on Plaintiff’s response (Doc. 35).
Most of Plaintiff’s response addresses claims that have already been dismissed. Id. at 1–
17. Plaintiff then lists his state law claims as false light, NIED, and defamation. Id. at 18. The
last three pages of Plaintiff’s response include an AI Overview addressing the meaning of “buck
breaking.” Id. at 19–20. The AI Overview describes buck breaking as “an offensive and historical
term that refers to the act of publicly punishing and often sexually assaulting or raping enslaved
Black men by enslavers, primarily to humiliate them and assert dominance.” 	Id. at 19. 	The
overview goes on to provide that “[i]n modern contexts, ‘buck breaking’ is used to refer to the
enduring 	impact 	of 	systemic 	racism 	and 	the 	continued 	oppression, 	humiliation, 	and
disenfranchisement of Black men . . ..” 	Id. 	The response also includes a google search and
corresponding AI Overview for “projecting.” Id. at 21–22.
The Court addressed Plaintiff’s state law claims in detail in the M&O II and found that:
Plaintiff failed to allege how the statements made at the WCJ became public and failed to suggest
that they were communicated to the public at large or to so many persons that the matter must be
regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge; Plaintiff failed to allege a
physical injury sufficient to state a claim for NIED under Kansas law; and Plaintiff failed to set
Case 5:25-cv-03013-EFM-JBW Document 36 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 3

3
forth any factual allegations under the section titled “Defamation in Kansas” and none of the
allegations indicate that they support a defamation claim. (Doc. 29, at 12–16.)
Plaintiff was ordered to show good cause why his state law claims should not be dismissed
for the reasons set forth in the Court’s M&O II. 	Nothing in Plaintiff’s response addresses the
deficiencies noted in the M&O II. Plaintiff has failed to show good cause why his state law claims
should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff’s causes of action
under Kansas law for invasion of privacy based on false light publicity, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, and defamation are dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated December 12, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-03013-EFM-JBW Document 36 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 3