Opinion ID: 4533544
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Thompson’s Civil Case

Text: While his criminal proceeding was pending, Mr. Thompson filed a pro se suit in the District of Kansas against Judge Platt, the law enforcement officers who executed the wiretap orders, Geary County Commissioners Ben Bennett and Larry Hicks, and T-Mobile USA, Inc.5 The court dismissed Judge Platt on immunity grounds and the commissioners because Mr. Thompson failed to allege wrongdoing by them. In an amended pro se complaint, Mr. Thompson named Judge Platt, Junction City Police Chief Timothy Brown, Special Agent Glen Virden of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Geary County Sheriff Tony Wolf, and T-Mobile. Mr. Thompson alleged:  Judge Platt (1) knew or should have known he could not issue wiretap orders beyond his territorial jurisdiction, and (2) failed to appoint Mr. Thompson counsel. ROA, Vol. I at 316.  Chief Brown, Agent Virden, and Sheriff Wolf (“law enforcement defendants”) knew or should have known that the wiretap orders sought communications outside 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 United States Attorney’s Office, despite the absence of reference to texts in the wiretap orders.  The law enforcement defendants “all had final decision making authority within their respect[ive] departments.” Id. at 313.  T-Mobile improperly intercepted and disclosed his text messages, resulting in the improper execution of a search warrant. 5 In addition, Mr. Thompson listed in the complaint’s caption Geary County, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, the Junction City Police Department, and the Geary County Sheriff’s Office. 5  “[T]he defendants act[ed] under the color of state law.” Id. at 312. 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