Garrison v. Kitchens et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JOE RANDALL GARRISON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3220-JWL
PAT KITCHENS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Joe Randall Garrison filed this civil rights action in November 2024 in the District
Court of Leavenworth County, Kansas; Defendants Pat Kitchens and the Leavenworth Police
Department removed it to this Court in October 2025. This Court conducted the statutorily required
screening of the operative amended complaint and concluded that this case is subject to dismissal
in its entirety. Thus, on October 15, 2025, the Court issued a memorandum and order to show
cause (“MOSC”) directing Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, why this case should not be
dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief is granted. (Doc. 4.) This case comes now
before the Court on Plaintiff’s response to the MOSC. (Doc. 7.)
The response is titled “Order to Show Cause” and it purports to order Defendants to show
cause in writing why Plaintiff should not be awarded $50,000.00 for the deprivation of his civil
rights. Id. It also asks the Court to “deny any motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and
require The Defendants to respond to the merits of the Complaint and provide any justification or
legal basis for their actions.” Id. Even liberally construed, this pro se filing does not respond to the
points made in the MOSC. With this document, Plaintiff has filed 20 pages of attachments, none
of which are responsive to the MOSC.
Case 5:25-cv-03220-JWL Document 9 Filed 12/19/25 Page 1 of 2

2
As explained in the MOSC, federal statutes require this Court to conduct a preliminary
screening of the controlling pleading in this action and “dismiss [it] or any portion thereof if a
plaintiff has raised claims that . . . fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” (Doc. 4
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2)).) This statutory requirement led to the Court issuing the
MOSC; there is no motion to dismiss pending before the Court. The deadline for Plaintiff to
respond to the MOSC and show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to state a
claim has now passed. Even liberally construed, the only documents Plaintiff has filed neither
acknowledge the MOSC nor argue that this case should not be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court
maintains its conclusion that, for the reasons set forth in the MOSC, this matter should be dismissed
for failure to state a claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that this matter is dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated December 19, 2025, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-03220-JWL Document 9 Filed 12/19/25 Page 2 of 2