Opinion ID: 4533546
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Banks’s Civil Case

Text: While his criminal proceeding was pending, Mr. Banks filed a pro se suit in the District of Kansas against Judge Platt; Geary County District Attorney Steven L. Opat; Kansas Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Glen Virden; Junction City Police Chief Timothy Brown; Riley County Police Department Director Brad Schoen; Topeka Police Chief Ron Miller; and Sprint/Nextel Wireless Telephone Company and Virgin Mobil USA/Sprint PCS (collectively, “Sprint”). The district court dismissed Judge Platt, District Attorney Opat (in his official capacity), and Special Agent Virden (in his official capacity) on immunity grounds.5 In an amended pro se complaint, Mr. Banks named as defendants Judge Platt, District Attorney Opat, Special Agent Virden, Police Chief Brown, and Sprint. Mr. Banks alleged: • Judge Platt (1) knew or should have known he lacked jurisdiction to issue wiretap orders beyond his territorial jurisdiction; and (2) set an excessive bond and twice failed to appoint counsel in May 2013. • District Attorney Opat, Special Agent Virden, and Police Chief Brown (“law enforcement defendants”) knew or should have known that the wiretap orders sought communications that were outside of Judge Platt’s territorial jurisdiction and did not encompass text messages. • The law enforcement defendants impermissibly disclosed his text messages to third parties, such as the U.S. Attorney’s Office, despite the absence of reference to texts in the wiretap orders. 5 To the extent Mr. Banks had listed various police departments in the caption as defendants, the district court noted they are not suable entities and dismissed them as well. Similarly, the district court dismissed Geary County, as there were no allegations of misconduct against it. 5 • The law enforcement defendants “all had final decision making authority within their respect[ive] departments.” ROA, Vol. II at 9. • Sprint improperly intercepted and disclosed his text messages, resulting in the improper execution of a search warrant. • “the defendants act[ed] under the color of state law.” Id. He sued under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (providing a civil action for the unlawful interception, disclosure, or use of wire, oral, or electronic communications), Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-2518 (same), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and civil conspiracy law. The following chart summarizes the specific claims alleged in the amended complaint against each of the defendants: DEFENDANTS CLAIMS FOR RELIEF Judge Platt, sued in his individual and official NONE SPECIFIED capacities District Attorney Opat, 1. Violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-2518 Chief Brown, and Agent 2. Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 Virden, each sued in his 3. Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment) individual and official 4. “Conspiracy to Commit the Substantive Counts” capacity (pled only against Opat & Virden) Sprint 1. Violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-2518 2. Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 3. Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment) The district court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, and dismissed (1) Judge Platt, (2) the law enforcement defendants—District Attorney Opat, Police Chief Brown, and Special Agent Virden—to the extent they were sued in their official capacities, and (3) any defendants named in the original complaint but not named in the amended complaint—Director Schoen, Police Chief Miller, Geary 6 County, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, and the various police departments. The remaining defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motions. Mr. Banks unsuccessfully sought reconsideration under Rule 59(e). His appeal challenges the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals and the denial of reconsideration.6