Johnson v. Goodenow et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KYLE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 26-2005-EFM-ADM
STEPHANIE GOODENOW, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 7) that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In the
Complaint, Plaintiff Kyle Johnson, pro se, alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) against Defendants concerning his ongoing family
court case in Johnson County, Kansas. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report and
Recommendation. Plaintiff also moves for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and for a
Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 5).
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff’s
objections, the Court agrees with and adopts the Report and Recommendation concerning
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Judge Stephanie Goodenow, the Chief Judge of the 10th
Judicial District, and the Johnson County District Court in its entirety. The Court does not adopt
the Report’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Defendant Johnson
Case 2:26-cv-02005-EFM-ADM Document 9 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 2

-2-
County, 	Kansas 	be 	dismissed 	as 	barred 	by 	sovereign 	immunity1 	and 	§ 1983’s 	“person”
requirement.2 But the Court adopts the Report’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s § 1983 and ADA
claims against Johnson County be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Because the Court
dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint against all Defendants, his pending request for a TRO and a
preliminary injunction is moot.
IT 	IS 	THEREFORE 	ORDERED 	the 	Court 	ADOPTS 	in 	part 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation (Doc. 7) and Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 5) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This case is closed.
Dated this 11th day of February, 2026.
ERIC F. MELGREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 “In terms of scope, Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to states and state entities but not to counties,
municipalities, or other local government entities.” Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Agric. Ins. Co., 507 F.3d 1250, 1253 (10th
Cir. 2007) (emphasis added) (citing Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 (1977)).
2 As a local governmental unit, a county is deemed a “person” within the meaning of § 1983. Monell v. Dep’t
of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 689–90 (1978).
Case 2:26-cv-02005-EFM-ADM Document 9 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 2