Source: http://ks.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180206_0000602.DKS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:37:38+00:00

Document:
DAVID NEAL, et al., Defendants.
Gerald L. Rushfelt U.S. Magistrate Judge.
Within fourteen days after a party is served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, that party may, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. A party must file any objections within the fourteen-day period allowed if that party wants to have appellate review of the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, or the recommended disposition. If no objections are timely filed, no appellate review will be allowed by any court.
The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As a result, his Complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned magistrate judge recommends dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Pro se plaintiff John Roudybush filed this action on October 18, 2017. It is not clear what claim(s) for relief his complaint purports to allege. Plaintiff indicates that his case arises because of violations of the civil or equal rights, privileges, or immunities accorded to citizens of, or persons within the jurisdiction of, the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343.Plaintiff also states his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated, based on an illegal taking of property. On his Civil Cover Sheet Plaintiff states he is filing under “Amendment 4, 5, 14” and has checked the box for “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.” Plaintiff is claiming one million dollars in damages.
In a separate attachment included with his Complaint, Plaintiff states he is filing a civil complaint “that should be and is a criminal complaint.” Although it is somewhat hard to follow, Plaintiff appears to say the Defendants trespassed on his property in Salina, Kansas, and removed a trailer which contained his personal property. Plaintiff does not say when or under what circumstances this occurred. He does not provide any other details, except to reiterate that he would prefer to file this case as a criminal complaint but has been “forced” to file it as a civil complaint.
In making its analysis, the court must liberally construe the pleadings and hold them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. Liberally construing a pro se plaintiff's complaint means that “if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so despite the plaintiff's failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence structure, or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements.” This does not mean, however, that the court must become an advocate for the pro se plaintiff. Sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e)(2) is also proper when the complaint clearly appears frivolous or malicious on its face.
Plaintiff further does not appear to sufficiently allege a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To succeed on an action alleging a violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show the defendant was acting “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage.” Plaintiff's complaint fails to describe any action taken by any defendant, or that any defendant was acting under color of state law.

References: § 636
 § 1915
 §1343
 § 1915
 § 1983
 § 1983