Dorsey v. Bunger et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MALIK W. DORSEY,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 26-3343-JWL
KAIDEN MATTHEW BUNGER, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This is a pro se civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by Plaintiff and state pretrial
detainee Malik W. Dorsey, who is currently incarcerated at the Saline County Jail (“SCJ”) in
Salina, Kansas. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.)
This matter comes now before the Court on Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 5), received on
October 7, 2026. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss Count I of the amended
complaint. The Court finds that Count II of the amended complaint cannot be processed without
additional information, which the Court will direct the appropriate officials to provide.
I. 	Procedural History
On September 14, 2026, Plaintiff filed the complaint that began this case. (Doc. 1.) Because
Plaintiff is a prisoner and proceeds in forma pauperis, the Court was required by statute to screen
his 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). The screening revealed deficiencies that left the
complaint subject to dismissal in its entirety; specifically, the complaint did not contain sufficient
facts to state a plausible claim for relief and it contained improperly joined claims and parties. In
Case 5:26-cv-03343-JWL Document 6 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 6

2
addition, the Court lacks legal authority to grant some of the relief Plaintiff sought in the complaint.
(See Doc. 4-1, p. 1-10.)
Thus, on September 28, 2026, the Court issued a memorandum and order (“M&O”)
identifying the deficiencies and granting Plaintiff time to file a complete and proper amended
complaint that cured them. See id. at 1-12. The M&O explained to Plaintiff that his amended
complaint must be filed on the required form and would not supplement the original complaint, it
would completely replace it. Id. Therefore, Plaintiff needed to ensure that the amended complaint
contained all allegations and claims he wished to pursue in this case. Id. On October 7, 2026, the
Court received Plaintiff’s timely amended complaint, submitted on the required form. (Doc. 5.)
II. 	The Amended Complaint (Doc. 5)
Like the initial complaint, the amended complaint names as Defendants SCJ Corporal
Benjamin MacManigal and SCJ Officer Kaiden Matthew Bunger. (Doc. 5, p. 1-2.) As Count I of
the amended complaint, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant MacManigal violated Plaintiff’s First
Amendment right to free exercise of his religion. Id. at 3. As supporting facts for Count I, Plaintiff
alleges that on April 20, 2026, he submitted a grievance through the kiosk asking for a Bible. Id.
at 6. On the morning of April 26, 2026, Defendant MacManigal responded through the kiosk:
“[W]e are not giving you a Bible.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff asserts that this response “placed a burden on
[his] back.” Id. at 6.
As Count II of the amended complaint, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Bunger violated his
Fourteenth Amendment rights by using excessive force. Id. at 3. As supporting facts for Count II,
Plaintiff alleges that on the morning of April 26, 2026, Defendant Bunger came into cell Y-20 at
the SCJ and forced Plaintiff’s head into the ground for no reason. Id. at 3, 7. Plaintiff states that he
was not moving or resisting when this happened. Id. at 7. He further states that the use of force
Case 5:26-cv-03343-JWL Document 6 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 6

3
knocked him unconscious and caused his nose to bleed. Id. As relief in the amended complaint,
Plaintiff seeks $400,000,000.00. Id. at 5.
IV. 	Analysis
The Court is required by statute to screen Plaintiff’s 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). The applicable screening standards are set forth in detail in the previous M&O and
will not be repeated in full here. (See Doc. 4-1, p. 2-4.) First, to the extent that Plaintiff asserts a
First Amendment claim in Count I of the amended complaint, he has failed to state a claim for
relief.
Plaintiff also brought a First Amendment Claim against Defendant MacManigal in his
initial complaint asserting only that on April 25, 2026, Defendant MacManigal “refused [Plaintiff
his] right to practice [his] religious beliefs by telling [Plaintiff] we are not giving you a Bible over
smart communications.” (Doc. 1, p. 3.) As to this claim, the M&O explained:
“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 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.
Plaintiff’s failure to allege specific facts is fatal to his First Amendment
claim in Count II [of the initial complaint]. Even liberally construing the pro se
complaint, 	Plaintiff 	does 	not 	explain 	how 	Defendant 	MacManigal 	“telling
[Plaintiff] we are not giving you a Bible over smart communications [sic]”
substantially burdened Plaintiff’s sincerely-held religious beliefs. (See Doc. 1, p.
3.) Thus, Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible free exercise claim under the First
Amendment.
(Doc. 4-1, p. 6.)
Case 5:26-cv-03343-JWL Document 6 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Although the amended complaint provides additional facts about the events involving
Defendant MacManigal, it still fails to allege facts that, if true, state a plausible claim that
Defendant MacManigal violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. Plaintiff does not provide
specific details on how the refusal substantially burdened his sincerely held religious beliefs; he
simply states it “placed a burden on [his] back.” As explained in the M&O, “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).” (Doc. 4-1, p.
3.) Accordingly, Count I of the amended complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a plausible
claim for relief. This means that Defendant MacManigal will be dismissed from this case, since
Count I of the amended complaint is the only count brought against him.
Turning to Count II, which brings an excessive force claim against Defendant Bunger, the
Court finds that proper processing of Count II cannot be achieved without additional information
from appropriate officials of the Saline County Jail. See Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th
Cir. 1978); see also Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the Court orders
the appropriate officials of the Saline County Jail to prepare and file a Martinez report regarding
Plaintiff’s excessive force claim in Count II of the amended complaint. Once the report has been
received, the Court can properly screen Plaintiff’s remaining claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Count I of the amended complaint and Defendant
MacManigal are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief could be
granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
(1) 	The SCJ officials shall submit the Martinez Report on or before November 20,
2026. Upon the filing of that Report, the Court will screen Count II of Plaintiff’s
Case 5:26-cv-03343-JWL Document 6 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 6

5
amended complaint. If Count II of the amended complaint survives screening, the
Court will enter a separate order serving Defendant and setting an answer deadline.
(2) 	Officials responsible for the operation of the SCJ are directed to undertake a review
of the subject matter of Count II of the amended complaint:
a. 	To ascertain the facts and circumstances;
b. 	To consider whether any action can and should be taken by the institution to
resolve the subject matter of the claim; and
c. 	To determine whether other like complaints, whether pending in this Court or
elsewhere, are related to this claim and should be considered together.
(3) 	Upon completion of the review, a written report shall be compiled which shall be
filed with the Court and served on Plaintiff. If the SCJ officials wish to file any
exhibits or portions of the report under seal or without service on Plaintiff, they
must file such portions separately from the public report and provisionally under
seal, to be followed immediately by a Motion to Seal or Redact Document(s). The
SCJ officials are exempt from filing the Notice of Proposed Sealed Record under
D. Kan. Rule 5.4.2(b).
(4) 	Statements of all witnesses shall be in affidavit form. Copies of pertinent rules,
regulations, official documents, and, wherever appropriate, the reports of medical
or psychiatric examinations shall be included in the written report. Any recordings
related to Plaintiff’s claims shall also be included. The SCJ officials shall redact
and/or mute audio for any personal identifiers included in any video or recording
submitted.
Case 5:26-cv-03343-JWL Document 6 Filed 10/09/26 Page 5 of 6

6
(5) 	Authorization is granted to the SCJ officials to interview all witnesses having
knowledge of the facts, including Plaintiff.
(6) 	No motion or other document addressed to the amended complaint shall be filed
until the Court has reviewed the Martinez Report and entered an order screening
the remaining claim in the amended complaint.
(7) 	Discovery by Plaintiff shall not commence until Plaintiff has received and reviewed
any Court-ordered answer or response to the amended complaint. This action is
exempted from the requirements imposed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) and 26(f).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter Saline County Sheriff
Roger Soldan as an interested party on the docket for the limited purpose of preparing the Martinez
Report ordered herein. Upon the filing of that report, the Saline County Sheriff may move for
termination from this action. Copies of this order shall be transmitted to Plaintiff, Defendant,
Sheriff Soldan, and the County Attorney for Saline County.
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-03343-JWL Document 6 Filed 10/09/26 Page 6 of 6