Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Vincent Dewayne Gaylord, Petitioner v. Kansas
Supreme Court briefFeb 7, 2024
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Appellate Case: 23-3075
Document: 010110992797
Date Filed: 01/31/2024
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
January 31, 2024
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
VINCENT DEWAYNE GAYLORD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
No. 23-3075
(D.C. No. 5:23-CV-04018-KHV-RES)
(D. Kan.)
STATE OF KANSAS,
Defendant - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before TYMKOVICH, McHUGH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Vincent DeWayne Gaylord, appearing pro se, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his suit against the State of Kansas. The district court dismissed
the complaint because sovereign immunity insulated the State and Plaintiff failed to
state a claim upon which the district court could grant relief. Exercising jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 23-3075
Document: 010110992797
Date Filed: 01/31/2024
Page: 2
I.
On March 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a form complaint for pro se litigants, twelve
pages of exhibits, and a second form complaint for pro se litigants for employment
discrimination claims. The district court construed these three documents as the
complaint. Plaintiff asserted claims for defamation, false-light invasion of privacy,
an employment discrimination violation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, and a civil rights violation under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. The district courtagreeing with the magistrate judge’s recommendations—dismissed the complaint on
two grounds. First, the district court dismissed three of the four claims under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) because the Eleventh Amendment provides the State of
Kansas sovereign immunity from suits for monetary damages. Second, the district
court dismissed the remaining claim for a failing to state a Title VII claim under .
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff appeals.
II.
“Questions involving Eleventh Amendment immunity are questions of law that
this court reviews de novo.” Comforth v. Univ. of Oklahoma Bd. of Regents. 263
F.3d 1129, 1131 (10th Cir. 2001) (citing Sturdevant v. Paulsen. 218 F.3d 1160, 1164
(10th Cir. 2000)).
We also review the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo. See Kavv. Bemis. 500 F.3d 1214. 1217 (10th Cir.
2007) (citing Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999)).
“Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is
2
Appellate Case: 23-3075
Document: 010110992797
Date Filed: 01/31/2024
Page: 3
obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be
futile to give him an opportunity to amend.” Id (quoting Curley v. Perry. 246 F.3d
1278, 1281 (10th Cir.2001)). Just as with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
dismissals, “we must accept the allegations of the complaint as true and construe
those allegations, and any reasonable inferences that might be drawn from them, in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Id (quoting Gaines v. Stenseng. 292 F.3d
1222, 1224 (10th Cir.2002)). And “we liberally construe pro se filings” though “we
do not ‘assume the role of advocate.’” Yang v. Archuleta. 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.l
(10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Ledbetter v. City of Topeka. Kan.. 318 F.3d 1183, 1187-88
(10th Cir. 2003)).
III.
Liberally construing Plaintiffs brief, Plaintiff objects to the district court’s
dismissal of his claims. While Plaintiff does not clearly appeal the dismissal of each
cause of action, he references the total damages for which he pleaded in his
complaint and reiterates the same general facts from his complaint. Thus, we
presume he appeals the dismissal of each cause of action.
The district court dismissed most of Plaintiff s claims pursuant to
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) because the Eleventh Amendment provides the State sovereign
immunity from suits for monetary damages. Under the Eleventh Amendment, a
plaintiff may not sue a state in federal court unless the state consents to the suit in
unequivocal terms or if Congress unequivocally abrogates the state’s immunity.
3
Appellate Case: 23-3075
Document: 010110992797
Date Filed: 01/31/2024
Page: 4
Collins v. Daniels. 916 F.3d 1302, 1315 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting Muscogee (Creekl
Nation v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n. 611 F.3d 1222, 1227 (10th Cir. 2010)).
Here, Plaintiff demands two million dollars in damages and requests no other
form of relief. Because this is a suit for monetary damages, sovereign immunity
blocks Plaintiffs claims if no exception exists. One claim—the employment
discrimination claim—survives as we have recognized that Congress abrogated
sovereign immunity for Title VII claims. Crumpacker v. Kansas Dep’t of Hum. Res..
338 F.3d 1163, 1169 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer. 427 U.S. 445, 449
n.2 (1976)). But Plaintiff cites no unequivocal consent to suit or congressional
abrogation of sovereign immunity for his other claims. And we see no exception. So
sovereign immunity bars Plaintiffs claims of defamation, invasion of privacy, and a
civil rights violation under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Thus, we address only his Title VII
discrimination claim on the merits.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in employment discrimination in
violation of Title VTI because Defendant prevented him from obtaining a teaching
job. “Title VII makes it unlawful ‘to discharge any individual, or otherwise to
discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin.’” Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1192
(10th Cir. 2012) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l)). Essential to this claim is an
employment relationship with Defendant. See Williams v. Meese. 926 F.2d 994, 997
(10th Cir. 1991) (“Since plaintiff has no employment relationship with defendants, he
4
Appellate Case: 23-3075
Document: 010110992797
Date Filed: 01/31/2024
Page: 5
cannot pursue a claim for discrimination against them under [] Title VII. . .”) Even
under the most liberal reading of the complaint, Plaintiff pleaded no such
employment relationship. And without that relationship, Plaintiff states no Title VII
claim against Defendant upon which relief may be granted.
For these reasons, we conclude that the State is immune from suit on all but
one of Plaintiff’s claims and that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which a court
may grant relief on the other. Thus, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal.
Entered for the Court
Joel M. Carson III
Circuit Judge
5
Appellate Case: 23-3075
Document: 010110992801
Date Filed: 01/31/2024
Page: 1
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Byron White United States Courthouse
1823 Stout Street
Denver, Colorado 80257
(303) 844-3157
Clerk@calO.uscourts.gov
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Jane K. Castro
Chief Deputy Clerk
January 31, 2024
Mr. Vincent Dewayne Gaylord
3710 SW 30th Street
Topeka, KS 66614
RE:
23-3075, Gaylord v. State of Kansas
Dist/Ag docket: 5:23-CV-04018-KHV-RES
Dear Appellant:
Enclosed is a copy of the order and judgment issued today in this matter. The court has
entered judgment on the docket pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. Rule 36.
Please contact this office if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
CMW/at
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 14 Filed 04/12/23 Page 1 of 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
VINCENT DEWAYNE GAYLORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 23-4018-KHV-RES
STATE OF KANSAS,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis (“IFP”), his complaint is subject to screening
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
For the reasons explained below, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that the District Judge dismiss Plaintiffs claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
because Plaintiffs complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted and because
at least some of Plaintiff s claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this case on March 16, 2023, naming the State of Kansas as the only
Defendant. ECF No. 1. In his initial filing, Plaintiff filed: this District’s form complaint for pro
se litigants, id.; 12 pages of exhibits, ECF No. 1-1; and a second form complaint for pro se litigants
for employment discrimination claims, ECF No. 1-2. Although Plaintiff should not have filed two
separate form complaints and a series of exhibits that are not directly discussed in or incorporated
by either complaint, because this is a pro se Plaintiff, the Court construes and refers collectively
to these three documents as “the complaint.” The first-filed complaint describes Plaintiffs claims
as follows:
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 14 Filed 04/12/23 Page 2 of 14
I have been wrongfully identified by the State of Kansas. The police
department have been slandering me. The discrimination continues
on and on. I have been treated as though I am a criminal and I am
not. They have slandered my name. I have been called [a
derogatory term and racial slurs] and defamation of character. All
this is for me to do something to someone. I am not that kind of
person because not all white people are behind the type of action.
ECF No. 1 at 3-4. The complaint states that Plaintiff seeks two million dollars in damages and
references his prior lawsuit in this District, Gaylord v. U.S. Department of the Army, No. 20-4058HLT-ADM, explaining that he “had to file a suit against the US Gov for this action and to get the
retirement I so well deserve[.]” ECF No. 1 at 5. l
Attached as an exhibit to the complaint is his second complaint—specifically, the District’s
form complaint for pro se employment discrimination claims. See ECF No. 1-2 at 1. Plaintiff has
checked a box on that complaint indicating that he asserts a claim under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, and he alleges discrimination based on race. Id. at 1, 3. As to the facts giving
rise to the claim, the employment complaint states:
I want punitive damages in the amount of 2 million dollars because
my name was slandered (defamation of character) and false
accusation which stopped me from becoming a teacher that I wanted
to be. The lies that I am a pedophile and that I am [a derogatory
term]. This has caused me to not have a relationship and other life.
The people here in Kansas has treated me as if I am a criminal and I
am not. They put this in the eyes of the American people.
i
Because some of the filings in this case refer to Plaintiffs prior case, the Court
summarizes that case briefly. On September 29,2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint naming the U.S.
Department of the Army (“the Army”), asserting employment discrimination claims and seeking
a review of the Army’s decision to deny him combat-related special compensation (“CRSC”) and
retirement pay. Gaylord, 20-4058-HLT-ADM, ECF No. 10. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs
employment discrimination claims, finding that Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the Rehabilitation Act do not provide a private remedy for military personnel, and Plaintiff had
alleged he was a uniformed armed service member. Id., ECF No. 10 (recommending dismissal);
id., ECF No. 16 (overruling Plaintiffs objections and adopting the Report and Recommendations).
The Court subsequently transferred the remainder of the case to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
pursuant to the Tucker Act. ECF No. 34.
2
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Documents Filed 04/12/23 Page 3 of 14
ECF No. 1-2 at 4.
Plaintiff has attached additional exhibits to his complaint including:
a photograph of a man in military uniform with the words, “Black Lives Matter,”
“[t]his is all about that I got army retirement due to discrimination,” and other
verbiage written beneath the photo;
an article from the Military Times',
an investigative request Plaintiff made to the Kansas Attorney General’s Office
alleging that Topeka police officers have surveilled his home and that he reported
the discrimination and harassment to both the Topeka Police Department and
“Forbes Air Base” (now known as the Topeka Regional Airport);
a supplemental investigative request made to the Kansas Attorney General’s Office
explaining that Plaintiff believes that someone on the air base is flying airplanes
over his home and sending signals that are death threats;
a document signed by Plaintiff stating that the “Kansas Attorney General is not
doing anything about this” and making additional allegations against the current
Attorney General;
another document that appears to be written by Plaintiff directed at an unnamed
agency that repeats the same allegations of discrimination and harassment;
a 2020 receipt from Office Max for a fax sent;
a printout from the Kansas Attorney General’s Office’s Consumer Protection
Division; and
•
a document captioning the case and reiterating that Plaintiff seeks two million
dollars in punitive damages for defamation, discrimination, “false accusations and
invading privacy.” ECF No. 1-1.
Plaintiff subsequently filed four “supplements” to the complaints throughout the month of
March. ECF Nos. 6, 7, 9, and 10.2 These include a 12-page document that appears to be a form
2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a) defines pleadings allowed in federal court.
That section does not recognize subsequently filed “supplements” as proper pleadings. That said,
the Court has reviewed the supplements in conjunction with this Report and Recommendation.
Nothing contained in the supplements alters the Court’s conclusion that this case is subject to
dismissal for the reasons discussed below.
3
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 14 Filed 04/12/23 Page 4 of 14
directed to the Kansas Governor’s Office containing allegations that law enforcement officers are
tracking Plaintiffs phone, threatening a lawsuit against the State of Kansas “because of this
action,” and detailing alleged harassment at Forbes Air Base in that an airplane allegedly flew over
his home at a low altitude. ECF No. 6 at 1-3. It also contains a request directed at the Army Board
for Correction of Military Records pertaining to his discharge from service and denial of benefits.
Id. at 4-8. Two other supplements are photographs of what Plaintiff characterizes as death threats
by a flying aircraft. ECF Nos. 7, 9. The last-filed supplement is a letter from the Kansas Attorney
General, noting receipt of Plaintiff s complaint regarding Forbes Air Base and the Topeka Police
Department and informing Plaintiff that the facts described do not fall under the jurisdiction of the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act. ECF No. 10 at 1.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Because Plaintiff proceeds IFP, his complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). That statute authorizes the Court to dismiss a case at any stage if it determines the
action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B); see also Salgado-Toribio v. Holder, 713 F.3d 1267, 1270 (10th Cir. 2013)
(screening applies to all litigants proceeding IFP). The screening process “is designed largely to
discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that
paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs of bringing suit and because of the
threat of sanctions for bringing vexatious suits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.” Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
In screening the complaint to determine whether it states a claim, the Court applies the
same standard it applies to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d
4
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 14 Filed 04/12/23 Page 5 of 14
1214,1217(10th Cir. 2007). A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a
‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. at 667 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In applying this standard, the Court
need not accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Id. Although the
plausibility standard does not require detailed factual allegations, it requires more than simply
pleading “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the Court liberally construes his complaint. Johnson v.
Johnson, 466 F.3d 1213, 1214 (10th Cir. 2006). But in doing so, the Court does not “assume the
role of advocate for the pro se litigant.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Rather, Plaintiff still bears “the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal
claim could be based.” Id. “Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper
only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would
be futile to give him an opportunity to amend.” Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222, 1224 (10th
Cir. 2002).
m.
DISCUSSION
Other than checking a box on the form complaint indicating that Plaintiff is asserting a
Title VII claim, the remainder of the complaint does not enumerate specific causes of action.
Nevertheless, the Court construes the complaint as also attempting to assert claims against the
5
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 14 Filed 04/12/23 Page 6 of 14
State of Kansas for defamation and invasion of privacy. See, e.g., ECF No. 1 at 3 (“The police
department have been slandering me.”); see also ECF No. 1-1 at 12 (referencing invasion of
privacy). Plaintiff also checked the box on the form complaint indicating that the case arises
because of a violation of civil or equal rights, privileges, or immunities under 28 U.S.C. § 1343,
which the Court construes to mean that Plaintiff may be attempting to assert civil rights claims.
See ECF No. 1 at 3. The complaint additionally references “discrimination,” which the Court
construes as pertaining to Plaintiffs Title VII claim and/or tying in with Plaintiffs allegations of
defamation.
See, e.g., id. at 3 (“The police department have been slandering me.
The
discrimination continues on and on.”).
As explained in further detail below, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, and at least some of Plaintiffs claims are subject to dismissal because the
complaint seeks monetary relief from the State of Kansas, which is immune from such relief under
the Eleventh Amendment. The Court first addresses the issue of immunity before turning to the
claims themselves.
A.
Eleventh Amendment Immunity
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), the Court is authorized to dismiss an IFP litigant’s
claim if it “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Here,
Plaintiff has named the State of Kansas as the sole Defendant, which implicates Eleventh
Amendment immunity. “Per the Eleventh Amendment, states may not be sued in federal court
unless they consent to it in unequivocal terms or unless Congress, pursuant to a valid exercise of
power, unequivocally expresses its intent to abrogate the immunity.” Collins v. Daniels, 916 F.3d
1302, 1315 (10th Cir. 2019) (internal quotations omitted); Hobbs v. Kansas Dep’tfor Child. &
Fams., No. CV 19-1307-KHV, 2021 WL 325839, at *3 (D. Kan. Feb. 1, 2021) (“Unless the state
6
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 14 Filed 04/12/23 Page 7 of 14
has waived its sovereign immunity or Congress has abrogated the state’s immunity by statute, the
Eleventh Amendment bars claims for injunctive and monetary relief brought against [states and]
state agencies.”)
Although the contours of Plaintiff’s claims are not entirely clear, he seeks monetary
damages in the amount of two million dollars against the State of Kansas. He does not, however,
point to any authority suggesting that the State of Kansas has waived its immunity or that Congress
has abrogated the State’s immunity by statute. ECF No. 1 at 4. With the exception of Plaintiff s
attempted Title VII claim, all other claims against the State of Kansas that the Court can discern
are subject to dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) because Plaintiff seeks monetary relief against
a Defendant that is immune from such relief.3
B.
Failure to State a Claim
The complaint is largely void of any factual allegations concerning Defendant the State of
Kansas. Plaintiff alleges that he has “been wrongly identified by the State of Kansas,” but then he
goes on to describe alleged wrongful conduct by “the police department.” ECF No. 1 at 3. He has
attached to his complaint an investigative request made to the Kansas Attorney General’s Office,
but that document references alleged harassment by the Topeka Police Department—a subunit of
3
See generally Jones v. Off. of Admin. Hearings, 757 F. App’x 692, 696-97 (10th
Cir. 2018) (affirming the district court’s finding that claims against a state agency and an
administrative law judge sued in her official capacity were subject to dismissal under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) because the defendants were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity);
Crumpacker v. Kansas Dep’tofHum. Res., 338 F.3d 1163,1169 (10th Cir. 2003) (“In Fitzpatrick
v. Bitzer, the Supreme Court held that Congress, by amending Title VII in 1972 to include state
and local governments as ‘employers,’ expressed a clear intention to abrogate the states’ Eleventh
Amendment immunity.”); Hobbs, 2021 WL 325839 at *3-4 (citing Ellis, 163 F.3d at 1196
(explaining that Eleventh Amendment barred claims against Kansas and its state agencies under
42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985)); Loggins v. Norwood, No. 18-3016-DDC-KGG, 2020 WL
224544, at *7 (D. Kan. Jan. 15, 2020) (finding that the Eleventh Amendment barred a
slander/defamation claim against state officials in their official capacity), aff’d, 854 F. App’x 954
(10th Cir. 2021).
7
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 14 Filed 04/12/23 Page 8 of 14
the city of Topeka itself—and unspecified individuals associated with Forbes Air Base (now
known as the Topeka Regional Airport). ECF No. 1-1 at 4. See generally Neighbors v. Lawrence
Police Dep’t, No. 15-CV-4921-DDC-KGS, 2016 WL 3685355, at *6 (D. Kan. July 12, 2016)
(discussing that a municipal police department is not a legal entity subject to suit because it is a
subunit of city government); Mahdi v. Salt Lake Police Dep’t, 54 F.4th 1232, 1240 (10th Cir.
2022) (discussing what entities are and are not arms of the state and noting that while Eleventh
Amendment immunity extends to states and state entities, it does not to counties, municipalities,
or other local governmental entities). The complaint contains only generalized allegations of
wrongful conduct by unspecified individuals without any explanation for why these actions are
attributable to the State of Kansas.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” As explained above, “[a]
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft, 556
U.S. at 678. In this case, and as described in additional detail below, the complaint lacks
allegations that the individuals involved with the alleged conduct are state actors or that there is
any nexus between them and the State of Kansas. By not alleging specific factual content
pertaining to Defendant, Plaintiff has not stated any cognizable claim as to this sole Defendant.
The Court addresses the specific claims it construes that Plaintiff is attempting to bring below.
1.
Defamation Claim
The complaint references defamation, slander, and libel. Under Kansas law, “[a]n action
for defamation includes libel and slander.” Woods v. Ross, No. 21-2011-DDC-TJJ, 2021 WL
3077236, at *13 n.9 (D. Kan. July 21, 2021) (internal citations omitted). Defamation claims must
8
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 14 Filed 04/12/23 Page 9 of 14
plead facts sufficient to satisfy three elements: “(1) [defendant] uttered or wrote false and
defamatory words; (2) [defendant] communicated these statements to a third person; and (3)
plaintiffs reputation was injured as a result.” Id. at *13 (citing Dominguez v. Davidson, 974 P.2d
112, 117 (Kan. 1999)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) governs pleading requirements for
defamation claims. Delcavo v. Tour Res. Consultants, LLC, No. 21-2137-JWL, 2021 WL
5867215, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 10, 2021). Although defamation claims are not subject to a
heightened pleading standard, “Rule 8(a) ‘requires that the complaint provide sufficient notice of
the communications complained of to allow [the defendant] to defend itself.’” Id. (quoting
McGeorge v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 871 F.2d 952, 955 (10th Cir. 1989).
The complaint does not plausibly allege that Defendant wrote or uttered false and
defamatory words,4 communicated these statements to a third person, or that Plaintiffs reputation
was injured as a result. Specifically, the statements Plaintiff references are not attributed to
Defendant. Instead, the complaint alleges: “I have been called [racial slurs and a derogatory name]
and defamation of character.” ECF No. 1 at 4. The complaint further alleges:
I want punitive damages in the amount of 2 million dollars because
my name was slandered (defamation of character) and false
accusation which stopped me from becoming a teacher that I wanted
to be. The lies that I am a pedophile and that I am [a derogatory
term]. This has caused me to not have a relationship and other life.
ECF No. 1-2 at 4. These generalized statements are not sufficient to show that Defendant—the
State of Kansas—uttered or wrote false and defamatory words. At most, Defendant appears to
allege that these statements were made by unspecified police officers “several times.” ECF No.
4
The Court does not address whether any alleged statements themselves are
actionable because they could constitute false and defamatory words given the other deficiencies
with this claim.
9
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 14 Filed 04/12/23 Page 10 of 14
1-1 at 4. But Plaintiff does not specify who uttered these words or why any purported statements
by a municipal police officer is attributable to the State of Kansas.
In his filed exhibits, Plaintiff also references an investigative request he made with regard
to the “National Guard Air Base.” See, e.g., ECF No. 1-1 at 7. Plaintiff states that “[t]his has to
be coming from the base,” id., but it is unclear whether he intends to allege that any such actions
by the air base constitute defamation. Plaintiff does not specify anyone connected with the air
base as uttering or writing any defamatory words or why such words would be attributable to the
State of Kansas. Instead, he only alleges that planes are flying over his home and these actions
constitute racism. See, e.g., ECF No. 1-1 at 8 (“The air craft is flying over my house sending x
signals that are death threats. This is systematic racism.”). Again, however, he does not tie planes
to the State of Kansas and he fails to plead that any such actions constitute written or uttered
defamatory words, which merits dismissal of these allegations.
The complaint also fails to plausibly allege facts supporting the second element—that
Defendant communicated false and defamatory words to a third person in that the complaint does
not identify to whom any alleged statements were made or any other details about the alleged
communication. See Woods, 2021 WL 3077236, at *13 (citing case law explaining that pleading
a defamation claim generally requires the complaint to identify to whom the alleged disparaging
remarks were made, as well as the time and place of the statements). Along the same lines, the
complaint does not plausibly allege facts supporting the third element—that Plaintiffs reputation
was damaged because of the statements—given the lack of clarity regarding to whom the
statements were made and how the statements themselves damaged Plaintiffs reputation. In sum,
the complaint does not plausibly allege a defamation claim.
10
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 14 Filed 04/12/23 Page 11 of 14
2.
Invasion of Privacy
, Although false-light invasion of privacy5 and defamation are two distinct torts, the
elements are similar. See Dominguez, 974 P.2d at 121. They include: (1) publication to a third
party, (2) false representation of the person; and (3) a representation which is highly offensive to
a reasonable person. Williams v. McKamie, No. CIV.A. 04-2516-KHV, 2005 WL 1397381, at *2
(D. Kan. June 13,2005).
The complaint fails to plausibly allege at least the first element of this claim because, as
explained above, Plaintiff has not pleaded facts that show that Defendant published a
representation to a third party. Because the claim is subject to dismissal on this basis, the Court
does not address the other deficiencies.
3.
Title Vn
“Title VII makes it unlawful ‘to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate
against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.’” Khalik
v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1192 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l)).
“To set forth a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must establish that (1) she is a member
of a protected class, (2) she suffered an adverse employment action, (3) she qualified for the
position at issue, and (4) she was treated less favorably than others not in the protected class.” Id.
5
Plaintiffs complaint simply references invasion of privacy generally, stating:
“Grant 2 million dollars for punitive damages and defamation of character. Also discrimination.
False accusations and invading privacy.” ECF No. 1-1 at 12. As an initial matter, it is not entirely
clear that Plaintiff is attempting to assert an invasion-of-privacy claim. But to the extent he is, he
has not specified which of the multiple types of invasions of privacy claims he is attempting to
assert. See Dominguez, 974 P.2d at 121 (noting that there are four types of invasion-of-privacy
claims and discussing false light). The Court construes the complaint as attempting to assert a
claim for invasion of privacy by false light.
11
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 14 Filed 04/12/23 Page 12 of 14
In attempting to construe Plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims, it appears that
Plaintiff is alleging that he has been unable to obtain an unspecified new job because of
Defendant’s purported statements. See ECF No. 1-2 at 1-2 (“I can’t get a job. ... I came home
from the service wanting to teach children and become a teacher but because of the slandering I
cannot do that.”).6 Plaintiff does not allege that he had or was seeking an employment relationship
with Defendant when any adverse employment action occurred. Because Plaintiff has not pleaded
any employment relationship with Defendant, he has not plausibly alleged a Title VII claim. See
generally Schroeder v. Wichita Police Dep’t, No. 20-1216-DDC-GEB, 2021 WL 678136, at *9
(D. Kan. Feb. 22, 2021) (dismissing a Title VII claim because the complaint “simply alleges
nothing about plaintiff ever having entered or sought an employment relationship with any
defendant”); see also Mallory v. Rocky Mountain Hum. Serv. SSVFT, No. 22-1141, 2022 WL
3754839, at *1 (10th Cir. Aug. 30, 2022) (affirming the dismissal of a Title VII claim when
plaintiffhad pleaded and later admitted that there was no employer-employee relationship between
plaintiff and defendant). Because of the omission, the complaint does not plausibly allege a Title
VII claim.
6
While the complaint alleges his desire to be a teacher, he has also attached as an
exhibit to the complaint an article from the Military Times, on which Plaintiff has written “racial
discrimination during combat training[.] My evaluation reports show combat training.” ECF No.
1-1 at 2. To the extent Plaintiff references his prior suit against the U.S. Army and the alleged
discrimination Plaintiff experienced while enlisted, the court previously dismissed that claim.
Gaylord v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, No. 5:20-CV-4058-HLT-ADM, 2021 WL 6750629, at *2 (D.
Kan. Jan. 7, 2021) (“Liberally construed, the complaint asserts claims for unlawful employment
discrimination based on race and disability and a claim for review of the Army’s decision to deny
benefits. However, the complaint fails to state a claim for employment discrimination because
uniformed members of the armed services are barred from asserting claims under Title VII, the
ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act.”). Regardless, even under the most liberal reading of the
complaint, it does not allege or even suggest that any employment relationship between Plaintiff
and Defendant.
12
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 14 Filed 04/12/23 Page 13 of 14
Additionally, Plaintiff does not plead sufficient facts to establish any of the other elements
of a Title VII claim either. Plaintiffs failure to allege any facts that could support these elements
again means that the complaint does not plausibly allege a Title VII claim.
4.
Civil Rights Claims
Plaintiff also checked the box on the form complaint for pro se litigants indicating this case
arises because of a violation of civil or equal rights, privileges, or immunities pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1343. ECFNo. 1 at 3. “Section 1343 grants federal district courts jurisdiction to hear civil rights
cases, but this statute does not specifically provide a cause of action.” Smith v. G & WFoods, No.
20-CV-2517-JAR-TJJ, 2021 WL 1546222, at *4 (D. Kan. Apr. 20, 2021). Rather, it is a
jurisdictional statute listing categories of actions that may be brought in federal court, but the
plaintiff must “still allege facts to support a cognizable cause of action under one of these
categories.” Id.
“Section 1343 is limited to cases involving state action, which means deprivation of right
by a state officer under the authority or pretended authority of state law.” Robles v. State Farm
Ins., 509 F. App’x 748,750 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting Monks v. Hetherington, 573 F.2d 1164,1167
(10th Cir.1978)). The complaint does not specify which, if any, category of claims under § 1343
Plaintiff is attempting to assert. Other than simply checking the box on the form complaint, the
complaint does not explain how Plaintiffs civil rights were violated or what protected right
Defendant allegedly violated. Rather, the complaint contains a narrative statement with largely
boilerplate allegations of improper conduct including slander by a police department,
discrimination, being treated as a criminal, and name-calling. ECF No. 1 at 3-4.
Although the Court must liberally construe Plaintiffs complaint, it is not the Court’s role
to supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiffs complaint or construct a legal
13
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 14 Filed 04/12/23 Page 14 of 14
theory on a plaintiffs behalf.” Whitneyv. StateofN.M., 113 F.3d 1170,1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997).
In this case, the Court cannot discern any cognizable civil rights claim against the State of Kansas
based on the limited factual allegations in the complaint. See also Haywood v. Kansas, No. 21CV-2329-JWB-TJJ, 2022 WL 2116306, at *2 (D. Kan. June 13, 2022) (recommending dismissal
of a complaint when the plaintiff checked a box indicating that the case arose under § 1343 but
without alleging facts supporting the jurisdictional allegation, noting that the “complaint does not
allege how her civil rights were violated, nor does it articulate what protected right Defendants
allegedly violated”).
For these reasons, the Court finds that the complaint does not plausibly
allege any civil rights claim.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Judge
dismiss Plaintiffs claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiffs complaint does not
state a claim upon which relief may be granted and because at least some of Plaintiff s claims are
barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
** * * *
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), and D. Kan. Rule 72.1.4(b),
Plaintiff may file written objections to this report and recommendation within fourteen days after
being served with a copy. If Plaintiff fails to file objections within the fourteen-day period, no
appellate review of the factual and legal determinations in this report and recommendation will be
allowed by any court. See In re Key Energy Res. Inc., 230 F.3d 1197,1199-1200 (10th Cir. 2000).
Dated: April 12, 2023, at Topeka, Kansas.
/s/ Rachel E. Schwartz
Rachel E. Schwartz
United States Magistrate Judge
14
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 19 Filed 04/26/23 Page 1 of 1
United States District Court
DISTRICT OF KANSAS
VINCENT DEWAYNE GAYLORD,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 23-CV-04018-KHV
v.
STATE OF KANSAS,
Defendant.
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
□
Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a jury trial. The issues have been
tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.
IS
Decision by the Court. This action came before the Court. The issues have been
considered and a decision has been rendered.
Pursuant to the Order (Doc. 18), filed April 26, 2023, the Court adopted the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ.. P., and because at least some claims are barred by Eleventh
Amendment immunity.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 26. 2023
SKYLER O’HARA
CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT
by: /s/Audra Harper
Deputy Clerk
m ■%'
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 13 Filed 04/12/23 Page 1 of 2
Q5urf
cj
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
VINCENT DEWAYNE GAYLORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 23-4018-KHV-RES
STATE OF KANSAS,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs renewed motion to proceed without
prepayment of fees. ECF No. 11. The Court denied Plaintiffs prior motion without prejudice to
refiling because the accompanying affidavit contained incomplete information or information that
required clarification. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff has now filed a completed form affidavit of financial
status, which the Court construes as a renewed motion. ECF No. 11. As discussed below, the
Court will grant this motion only insofar as the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to proceed without
prepayment of fees.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915 allows courts to authorize commencing a civil action “without
prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that... the person
is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” To succeed on an IFP motion, “the movant
must show a financial inability to pay the required filing fees.” Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408
F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005). Proceeding IFP “in a civil case is a privilege, not a right—
fundamental or otherwise.”
White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998). The
decision to grant or deny IFP status under § 1915 lies within the district court’s sound discretion.
Engbergv. Wyoming, 265 F.3d 1109, 1122 (10th Cir. 2001).
M ^
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 13 Filed 04/12/23 Page 2 of 2
As an initial matter, the Court notes that some of the information provided in Plaintiffs
most recent affidavit (ECF No. 11) materially differs from what Plaintiff represented in his prior
affidavit (ECF No. 3-1). The Court reminds Plaintiff that by signing and submitting his affidavits,
he stated that he understood that a false statement or answer to any question in the affidavit could
subject him to penalties of perjury. That said, the Court does not foreclose that there could be
reasonable explanations for the discrepancies, and at least some of the inconsistent information
provided in the most recent affidavit, such as a decrease in monthly expenses, weighs against
Plaintiff s request. In other words, it does not appear that Plaintiff has attempted to inflate his
monthly expenses and deflate his monthly income to bolster his position that he is unable to pay
the filing fee. And the most recent affidavit acknowledges that Plaintiff was “in a rush on the last
Affidavit of Financial Status.” ECF No. 11 at 6.
Based on the information provided in Plaintiffs most recent affidavit of financial status,
the Court concludes that Plaintiffs financial situation warrants waiving the filing fee. Because of
this, the Court grants Plaintiff s motion only insofar as the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to
proceed without prepayment of fees. The Court will not direct service of process on the Defendant
until the Court screens the complaint for merit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed without
prepayment of fees (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED. The U.S. Marshals Service shall withhold
service on the Defendant until further order of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 12, 2023, at Topeka, Kansas.
Ts! Rachel E. Schwartz
Rachel E. Schwartz
United States Magistrate Judge
2
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 14 Filed 04/12/23 Page 1 of 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
VINCENT DEWAYNE GAYLORD,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 23-4018-KHV-RES
v.
STATE OF KANSAS,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis (“IFP”), his complaint is subject to screening
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
For the reasons explained below, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that the District Judge dismiss Plaintiffs claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
because Plaintiffs complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted and because
at least some of Plaintiff s claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this case on March 16, 2023, naming the State of Kansas as the only
Defendant. ECF No. 1. In his initial filing, Plaintiff filed: this District’s form complaint for pro
se litigants, id.; 12 pages of exhibits, ECF No. 1-1; and a second form complaint for pro se litigants
for employment discrimination claims, ECF No. 1-2. Although Plaintiff should not have filed two
separate form complaints and a series of exhibits that are not directly discussed in or incorporated
by either complaint, because this is a pro se Plaintiff, the Court construes and refers collectively
to these three documents as “the complaint.” The first-filed complaint describes Plaintiffs claims
as follows:
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 14 Filed 04/12/23 Page 2 of 14
I have been wrongfully identified by the State of Kansas. The police
department have been slandering me. The discrimination continues
on and on. I have been treated as though I am a criminal and I am
not. They have slandered my name. I have been called [a
derogatory term and racial slurs] and defamation of character. All
this is for me to do something to someone. I am not that kind of
person because not all white people are behind the type of action.
ECF No. 1 at 3-4. The complaint states that Plaintiff seeks two million dollars in damages and
references his prior lawsuit in this District, Gaylord v. U.S. Department of the Army, No. 20-4058HLT-ADM, explaining that he “had to file a suit against the US Gov for this action and to get the
retirement I so well deserve[.]” ECF No. 1 at 5.
Attached as an exhibit to the complaint is his second complaint—specifically, the District’s
form complaint for pro se employment discrimination claims. See ECF No. 1-2 at 1. Plaintiff has
checked a box on that complaint indicating that he asserts a claim under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, and he alleges discrimination based on race. Id. at 1, 3. As to the facts giving
rise to the claim, the employment complaint states:
I want punitive damages in the amount of 2 million dollars because
my name was slandered (defamation of character) and false
accusation which stopped me from becoming a teacher that I wanted
to be. The lies that I am a pedophile and that I am [a derogatory
term]. This has caused me to not have a relationship and other life.
The people here in Kansas has treated me as if I am a criminal and I
am not. They put this in the eyes of the American people.
1
Because some of the filings in this case refer to Plaintiffs prior case, the Court
summarizes that case briefly. On September 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint naming the U.S.
Department of the Army (“the Army”), asserting employment discrimination claims and seeking
a review of the Army’s decision to deny him combat-related special compensation (“CRSC”) and
retirement pay. Gaylord, 20-4058-HLT-ADM, ECF No. 10. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs
employment discrimination claims, finding that Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the Rehabilitation Act do not provide a private remedy for military personnel, and Plaintiff had
alleged he was a uniformed armed service member. Id., ECF No. 10 (recommending dismissal);
id., ECF No. 16 (overruling Plaintiffs objections and adopting the Report and Recommendations).
The Court subsequently transferred the remainder of the case to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
pursuant to the Tucker Act. ECF No. 34.
2
Statute | Kansas State Legislature
4/6/23, 3:24 PM
House Status: Adjourned until Monday. January 11. 2021 at 02:00 p.m.
Senate Status: Adjourned until Monday. January 11.2021 at 02:00 p.m.
2019 Statute
' w, ..
*.
Prev
Article 61. - CRIMES INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF PERSONAL RIGHTS
Next
"g
21-6101. Breach of privacy, (a) Breach of privacy is knowingly and without lawful authority:
(1) Intercepting, without the consent of the sender or receiver, a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of private
communication;
(2) divulging, without the consent of the sender or receiver, the existence or contents of such message if such person knows that the
message was illegally intercepted, or if such person illegally learned of the message in the course of employment with an agency in
transmitting it;
(3) entering with intent to listen surreptitiously to private conversations in a private place or to observe the personal conduct of any other
person or persons entitled to privacy therein;
(4) installing or using outside or inside a private place any device for hearing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds originating in
such place, which sounds would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible without the use of such device, without the consent of the
person or persons entitled to privacy therein;
(5) installing or using any device or equipment for the interception of any telephone, telegraph or other wire or wireless communication
without the consent of the person in possession or control of the facilities for such communication;
(6) installing or using a concealed camcorder, motion picture camera or photographic camera of any type to secretly videotape, film,
photograph or record, by electronic or other means, another identifiable person under or through the clothing being worn by that other person
or another identifiable person who is nude or in a state of undress, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that
other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person, with the intent to invade the privacy of that other person, under
circumstances in which that oilier person has a reasonable expectation of privacy;
(7) disseminating or permitting the dissemination of any videotape, photograph, film or image obtained in violation of subsection (a)(6); or
(8) disseminating any videotape, photograph, film or image of another identifiable person 18 years of age or older who is nude or engaged
in sexual activity and under circumstances in which such identifiable person had a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to
harass, threaten or intimidate such identifiable person, and such identifiable person did not consent to such dissemination.
(b) Breach of privacy as defined in:
(1) Subsection (a)(1) through (a)(5) is a class A nonperson misdemeanor;
(2) subsection (a)(6) or (a)(8) is a:
(A) Severity level 8, person felony, except as provided in subsection (b)(2)(B); and
(B) severity level 5, person felony upon a second or subsequent conviction within the previous five years; and
(3) subsection (a)(7) is a severity level 5, person felony.
(c) Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to messages overheard through a regularly installed instrument on a telephone party line or on an
extension.
(d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (!•) An operator of a switchboard, or any officer, employee or agent of any public
utility providing telephone communications service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a communication, to intercept, disclose
or use that communication in the normal course of employment while engaged in any activity which is incident to the rendition of public
utility service or to the protection of the„ rights of property of such public utility; (2) a provider of an interactive computer service, as defined
in 47 U.S.C. § 230, for content provided by another person; (3) a radio common carrier, as defined in K.S.A. 66-1,143, and amendments
thereto; and (4) a local exchange carrier or telecommunications carrier as defined in K.S.A. 66-1,187, and amendments thereto.
(e) The provisions of subsection (a)(8) shall not apply to a person acting with a bona fide and lawful scientific, educational, governmental,
news or other similar public purpose.
(f) As used in this section, "private place" means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from uninvited intrusion or
surveillance.
History: L. 2010, ch. 136, § 171; L. 2011, ch. 63, § 1; L. 2016, ch. 96, § 5; July 1.
Prev
Article 61. - CRIMES INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF PERSONAL RIGHTS
www.kslegislature.org/li_2020/b2019_20/statute/021_000_0000_chapter/021_061_0000_article/021_061_0001_section/021_061_0001_k/
Next
.A) .
1/1
(J
4/6/23, 3:27 PM
Statute | Kansas State Legislature
2012 Statute
Prev
Article 62. - CRIMES AGAINST THE PUBLIC PEACE
Next
■S
21-6206. Harassment by telecommunication device, (a) Harassment by telecommunication device is the use of:
(1) A telecommunications device to:
(A) Knowingly make or transmit any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image or text which is obscene, lewd, lascivious or indecent;
(B) make or transmit a call, whether or not conversation ensues, with intent to abuse, threaten or harass any person at the receiving end;
(C) make or transmit any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image or text with intent to abuse, threaten or harass any person at the
receiving end;
(D) make or cause a telecommunications device to repeatedly ring or activate with intent to harass any person at the receiving end;
(E) knowingly play any recording on a telephone, except recordings such as weather information or sports information when the number
thereof is dialed, unless the person or group playing the recording shall be identified and state that it is a recording; or
(F) knowingly permit any telecommunications device under one's control to be used in violation of this paragraph.
(2) Telefacsimile communication to send or transmit such communication to a court in the state of Kansas for a use other than court
business, with no requirement of culpable mental state.
(b) Harassment by telecommunication device is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.
(c) Every telephone directory published for distribution to members of the general public shall contain a notice setting forth a summary of
the provisions of this section. Such notice shall be printed in type which is no smaller than any other type on the same page and shall be
preceded by the word "WARNING."
(d) As used in this section, “telecommunications device” includes telephones, cellular telephones, telefacsimile machines and any other
electronic device which makes use of an electronic communication service, as defined in K.S.A. 22-2514, and amendments thereto.
(e) An offender who violates the provisions of this section may also be prosecuted for, convicted of, and punished for any other offense in
K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21-5508,21-5509, 21-5510 or 21-6401.
History: L. 2010, ch. 136, § 184; L. 2011, ch. 100, § 17; July 1.
Prev
Article 62. - CRIMES AGAINST THE PUBLIC PEACE
www.kslegislature.org/li_2012/b2011_12/statute/021_000_0000_chapter/021_062_0000_article/021_062_0006_section/021_062_0006_k/
Next
V'
tM
1/1
VINCENT DEWAYNE GAYLORD
SUPPLEMENT THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff
V.
CASE NO. 23-4018-KHV-RES
STATE OF KANSAS
26 APRIL 2023
Defendant
Motion to not dismiss
If it please the District court of Kansas, please clarify this email that was sent to me because as I have
said before, I am not all that good when it comes to legal terms. As of now, I am doing this without an
attorney. I would like the court to clarify this in more detail. If the court is dismissing this case will this
move to a higher court. Please advise what my next step will be for a higher court to review this matter
if so.
t
BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION
Enclose: an email from the DISTRICT COURT
Vincent D. Gayrord
Us army, ret
V ^
V
*
r
n
e
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 1-1 Filed 03/16/23 Page 3 of 12
sf~ t>Z-$cLrr)cd'iQPx
TTierz ,s ^ CW—W
^ Kansas Attorney General
5:
so
h u*v-'/me
1 If fie W Knh^rh
Consumer Protection Division
-*
.
i
~r A-i ' i
120 SW 10th Avenue, 2nd Floor
' ^ -hu C<.pini0* -*•
Topeka, KS 66612-1597
y6 la
^Cy __ PHONE: (785) 296-3751 or (800) 432-2310 (toll free in Kansas)
>0.-1
FAX: (785) 291-3699 • wwMjnYourCprnerKansas.org
Qcv-i+ac+ect
^
Information About the Consumer
(Signature on Back Required)
Name:
Mr.
Ms.
Information About the Company
You Are Requesting We Investigate
Company Name:
Mrs.
/HfcyWeJ,-iV i)ZLL/l^AUAL
Address:
i
(y
Z
Address:
Apt.
{.I? /~>El
’c?
TlsPrArct x^rr
TopcAr* jhs dec,/'-/
:ity( State, Zip:
City, State, Zip, County:
on No Call?
Daytime Phone #:
Phone #:
NO
Salesperson:
Email Address:
&0 . Qo r^i
Contact Person:
Information About the Transaction
Date of Transaction:
County/Place of Transaction:
Did you sign a contract?,/^? Date Signed:
Product or Service Involved:
Did you have a verbal agreement?
Amount Paid: $
Payment Method:
]
Are you making payments on a contract, credit card, or other payment plan pursuant to this transaction?
If so, list the company name, address, amount(s) PAID, & YOUR account number:
First contact between you & the company:
____Person came to my home
____I telephoned the company
_____ I RESPONDED TO A RADIO/TV Ad/MAILING
_____ I WENT TO THE COMPANY’S PLACE OF BUSINESS
_____ I RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM THE COMPANY
____ Other (Explain)
I am a:
Individual
Family Partnership
Corporation
Where did the transaction take place:
____ Over the phone
____ At home
____ At the company
____By mail
Internet transaction
Other (Explain)
How COULD THIS HARM BE REMEDIED?
Sole-Proprietor
Partnership
___LLC (If so, are any members
OF THE LLC NON-FAMILY MEMBERS?)
Yes
or
___Refund $_________
___Service Preformed
Specify service preformed:
No
PLEASE COMPLETE BOTH SIDES
Product Delivery
Other
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 1-1 Filed 03/16/23 Page 4 of 12
Action You Have Taken
f£QDescribe result or explain why you have not contacted the company:
Have you contacted the company?
Have you filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau or any other agencies? siStf
What response have you received?
f~&T/DO^S£i
Do YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WITH SIMILAR EXPERIENCES WITH THIS SUPPLIER?
If you are being represented by an attorney regarding this matter, please list the attorney’s name, address and
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
Has legal action been taken by you or against you with regard to this transaction? /l/O
status of any legal action:
If so, please describe the current
Are you considering filing an action in small claims court?
yes
Description or Transaction
Please describe the transaction in chronological order (add additional pages as necessary).
X h(X.ij<L.
Porhs.nL
jrx?/!r\Ch
Sf \jerc j
/STr'
J T~ c?./SY)
/Snc>tea
Qep^r'hpy
Mc.c
*n'1' j
C' .r^) ^>->1.KjJp
r
ShX fS O^jCl
, .
•
/ /
Sq
,
cs^}
Sc^-cSjrn p>pl>'c -f
I
.
Q
cxncX d.<$sc
^V1
-Z
'ft'*?
>4/^ f/.P.
Xr/j-,v,o, J/JcP
PU$sh(?
'TAjV /T si)/
Pcs\<^[\c\i^rjP)y>> irTs'Xhi
p/i(py/l\isia, ySSrp
C*>U?S rh.Li
r.s^ he?^ nfr' /'rS{SS
XX *nc*.rMX} M&zJ’h 'fhJxhaX~
Sep/se
v K>7;/
~qp QoS
i
nut* ^+<k*i£‘¥
ppr(3> PH/
%r)/5-:mpe_ of tpd
fp^x/o^^j—rvnu CA?i?tteX |rfe.
ft. .teJQjdi-.-f~Op e&ryipr/foS.
^
IS1
Documentation of the Transaction
Please provide copies of ALL documents relevant to this transaction, including advertising material, contracts, warranty
information, receipts, letters, checks (front and back), photographs, bills, and invoices, etc. Failure to provide ALL rele
vant documents may cause unnecessary delay in the handling of your REQUEST.
I
if
."'i 6.__ /V'
■
Documents Enclosed
Nothing to Attach
CtncK Di>£C\}iniin4,cX—
Verification
Totally Disabled
Illiterate
Non-English Speaking
I am: _____ Over Age 60 _____ Partially Disabled
A Veteran or Surviving Spouse 'S/' A Member of the Military
An Immediate Family Member of a Member of the Military
In filing this request, I understand and agree that the Attorney General and his staff are not my private attorneys, but instead repre
sent the State of Kansas in enforcing laws designed to protect the public from deceptive and unconscionable business acts and practic
es. I understand that Kansas law limits the period of time during which I may file any private legal action (s). I further understand and
agree that the contents of this request may be forwarded to the business or person the request is direct against, may be forwarded to
other appropriate agencies, and will become accessible to others under the Kansas Open Records Act. I hereby authorize any party to
whom the Attorney General directs this complaint to releasp'tfnyAnd all information about this matter, including account information,
to the Kansas Attorney General’s Offtft^ Finally, I declare'and'verify under penalty of perjury and the laws of Kansas that all of the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge./'
/
^
'^'S§Sfure o
ydue
i S
r) /) Y
plainant (Required)"*
Date
j
ani^ -/©
LOnr /O ^
cjlo
'f
Rev. 01/2023
-+■///>*5 ct /quMOt
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 1-1 Filed 03/16/23 Page 5 of 12
/)■fj(n
OZ //<Z/Zo3.J
0/A ,
/{aA S'4 S'
I
mot J0lt-
(Xnyft\ln&j cxbou-^ t^'S.
X- j~kfnJc
0\ OxciS'f .
7~- ^s.
VIhC^\\ (xicx\j }oc9
Ltsn
\
:
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 1-1 Filed 03/16/23 Page 7 of 12
Rp IQ
COrvtp/*«.*M"
Kansas Attorney General
Derek Schmidt
I
Consumer Protection Division
120 SW 10th Avenue, 2nd Floor
Topeka, KS 66612-1597
PHONE: (785) 296-3751 or (800) 432-2310
FAX: (785) 291-3699 • wwwIriYourComerKansas.org
i
Investigative Request
Information About the Consumer
(Signature on Back Required)
■Name:
Mr.
Ms.
Information About the Company
You Are Requesting We Investigate
Company Name:
Mrs.
V incgnf*
DDRESS:
G\ush krd
/I jr^fi'otAaJ Gi(j(U/g?f tfr/iT ArpP.
Address:
Apt.#
Cxty, State, Zip:
Registered on No Call?
NO
V
G&&Z-
Email Address:
_____
Phone#:
Salesperson:
yahoo • co *ys
/<t~
^ ^
Contact Person:
^
-He, base
Information About the Transaction
Date of Transaction:
County/Place of Transaction:
Date Signed:
Did you sign a contract?
Product or Service Involved:
Did you have a verbal agreement?
Amount Paid: $_________
Payment Method :
ARE YOU MAKING PAYMENTS ON A CONTRACT, CREDIT CARD, OR OTHER PAYMENT PLAN PURSUANT TO THIS TRANSACTION?
If so, list the company name, address, amount(s) PAID, & YOUR ACCOUNT number:
First contact between you & the company:
y Person came to my home
____I telephoned the company
Where did the transaction take place:
____Over the phone
V At home
At the company
____By MAIL
____ I RESPONDED TO A RADIO/TV AD/MAILING
____ I WENT TO THE COMPANY’S PLACE OF BUSINESS
____ I RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM THE COMPANY
Internet transaction
Other (Explain)
____Other (Explain)
c/s
res “He
/
I am a:
y Individual
Family Partnership
___Corporation
Q
uOlW £e.
l/Jj fh £TT~.
HOW COULD THIS HARM BE REMEDIED?
Sole-Proprietor
Partnership
LLC (If so, are any members
OF THE LLC NON-FAMILY MEMBERS?)
Yes
or
No
Refund $_________
Service Preformed
Product Delivery
Other
Specify service preformed: /~i ** tL 0C(.f
~,s
1
tk
PLEASE COMPLETE BOTH SIDES
i
Case 5:23-cv-04018-KHV-RES Document 1-1 Filed 03/16/23 Page 8 of 12
i
I
v
*' »
Action You Have Taken
C .1
Have yoxj contacted the company? V4S Describe result or explain why you have not contacted the company:
LvZn~h fo
n >' s'
Have you feed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau or any other agencies?
What response have you received?
\
Hi Luk m/q )~/t
'±2.
<J
-ftcu to!tf /oo/c S-^+o H>T^
Do YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WITS SIMILAR EXPERIENCES WITH THIS SUPPLIER? SlSG
If YOU ARE BEING REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY REGARDING THIS MATTER, PLEASE LIST THE ATTORNEY’S NAME, ADDRESS AND
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
~l
u), /(
cup
Has legal action been taken by you or against you wrm regard to this trSu4SACTION?
STATUS OF ANY LEGAL ACTION:
p,I _ ,
_
II <
J-
QJ//1 IJd C^o?eS
If so, please describe the current
/
fUK fez-PS
n l~>
Are you considering filing an action in small claims court?
f Descripiioin of Transaction ..u,. _
- - 1
--i.
Please describe the transaction in chronological order (add additional pages as necessary).
TUQ C\\r'
OUQC n<Lj hov&ZL
MA
]s
i
fhci
. Ws /Z 'sjf 5few
J,
-thy 5~
h<? j-r/i?
2/) /oYVu
jvXiqaP.
~l-Y jh/S J^eoo^ Ciip
ST<3
Q/r p
us>-
cjQt^q fa %u<?.
3-
if
.Q\gjSj**,
X-
mu t*<-
<0/-v /?/.ST
<%/S0. r
3
L'M*/ ■J’///
-£(\
<P~N~ Q.y~
CAgr/V3g
.
5^rci#e
jiirpsxfc /S a
X-
CljfcX)
Documentation of the Transaction
Please provide copies of ALL documents relevant to this transaction, including advertising material, contracts, warranty
INFORMATION, RECEIPTS, LETTERS, CHECKS (FRONT AND BACK), PHOTOGRAPHS, BILLS, AND INVOICES, ETC. FAILURE TO' PROVIDE ALL RELE
VANT DOCUMENTS MAY CAUSE UNNECESSARY DELAY IN THE HANDLING OF YOUR REQUEST.
Documents Enclosed
Nothing to Attach
i
Verification
I am:
Over Age 60 ____ Partially Disabled ____ Totally Disabled
Illiterate _J___Non-English Speaking
____ A Veteran or Surviving Spouse X A Member of the Military
An Immediate Family Member of a Member of the Military
In filing this request, I understand and agree that the Attorney General and his staff are not my private attorneys, but instead repre
sent the State of Kansas in enforcing laws designed to protect the public from deceptive and unconscionable business acts and practic
es. I understand that Kansas law limits the period of time during which I may file any private legal action (s). I further understand and
agree that the contents of this request may be forwarded to the business or person the request is direct against, may be forwarded to
other appropriate agencies, and will become accessible to others under the Kansas Open Records Act. I hereby authorize any party to
whom the Attorney General directs this complaint to release any and all information about this matter, including account information,
to the Kansas Attorney General’s Office. Finally, I declare and verify under penalty of perjury and the laws of Kansas that all of the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my IouHtfJeage.
Signature^pfUomplainant (Required)
Date
Rev. 09/2019
1'
f
s'
Incident Report
Print Date/Time:
12/12/2023 11:36
Login ID:
mlewis
Topeka Police Department
ORI Number:
KS0890100
Incident:
Incident Date/Time:
Location:
Phone Number:
Report Required:
Prior Hazards:
LE Case Number:
10/24/2023 9:45:56 AM
3310 SW 30TH ST
TOPEKA KS 66614
2023-00089387
\
No
No
Incident Type:
Venue:
Mental Health
TOPEKA
Source:
Priority:
Status:
Nature of Call:
Officer Initiated
3-Medium
Miscellaneous
Unit/Personnel
Unit
Personnel
120A
TS445-SVALINA
Person(s)
No.
Sex
Race
Phone
Address
Name
Role
DOB
Vehicle(s)
Year
Type
Role
Make
Model
Color
State
License
Disposition(s)
Disposition
Count
Date/Time
Unit:120A
Disposition
Count
Date/Time
1
10/24/2023 09:53
NR
Property
Date
Page: 1 of 2
Code
Type
Make
Model
Description
Tag No.
Item No.
CAD Narrative
10/24/2023 : 09:51:14 tsvalina Narrative: Vincent Gaylord (B/M 7/1/1965 785-213-4476) came into report Drones that were flying over
his residence (c/a). He tried showing me pictures but there was no drones seen in the pictures. Vincent stated he believed it was the
government but did not know why they would be watching him. Poss S3, no report
Page: 2 of 2
ft C$rO
\
Jr i
w
■■•4
{
W*
i
Y
f.
'(!'
!|
[
mgm9m£&&
mM0^M
‘2
'imwM0*?-?' 'f^%
Ifill
|P
\1
.:3j
$
;J
t
'?m
s?*s«
l fi
;=»*»•
HP»^;f
HI
*5
w
i|p^^ ■ ■•■
fewTwf!
...
/MSS
■X
.•'if'," .s..-.-!;*?.*- '
'
V',. •/
■T
'' ■■■'•
w
Uli
sa
BRS
Iff!
T>
7/T
ht
ffRHsl
/fl
ft:
rai
1!
2&H
/
I
•' <#
A-
Incident Report
Print Date/Time:
Login ID:
ORI Number:
Incident:
Incident Date/Time:
Location:
Phone Number:
Report Required:
Prior Hazards:
LE Case Number:
\
Topeka Police Department
12/12/2023 11:36
mlewis
KS0890100
2023-00100758
12/1/2023 10:37:40 AM
3710 SW 30TH ST
TOPEKA KS 66614
No
No
Incident Type:
Venue:
Receive Info
TOPEKA
Source:
Priority:
Status:
Nature of Call:
Officer Initiated
3-Medium
Miscellaneous
t
Unit/Personnel
Unit
Personnel
119A
KE357-EVANS
x
Person(s)
Role
Name
1
Caller
Gaylord, Vincent D
Race
Phone
Address
No.
Sex
DOB
Male
07/01/1965
Vehicle(s)
Year
Type
Role
Make
Model
Color
State
License
Disposition(s)
Disposition
Count
Date/Time
Unit: 119A
Disposition
Count
Date/Time
1
12/01/2023 10:38
NR
Property
Date
Code
Type
Make
Model
Description
Tag No.
Item No.
Page: 1 of 2
I
J
m
w
i
«■
V
■ J
T lr
: i
y
V;
¥r,
j
/t/Jx
.fc
7^6
/, l/te "\/'ok c> t
-//
t
>
C
t
priVoCM
du* <L-r$ ■
^2>{y\^
OUZr
r\
■fieC
hoiAi&
m
^hi/^io^\ oP p*§J&
J-f
A)<i (Xln
Oyour
I
f~/<k
h^
JL ci/y/'J ri^kh
(7
^
/
W*'\
Ik"
r <
SS9?-. •
5%'
r>
'(•<
m..:
m
m
’;v
s./'1
'.w>, '; : v
1 -V! • •»'
?*'
■
3S.SS
X
, 'V
pft'x-.'
%4:
*mim*' ■
re*?
%
■rz
:■:/
\
;j*:
1
V
«
■■■
gs&S* :
•V
m
.4 r.
&lO
V
=>■■
p?i
ti>
tr.
*1
j25X4-5s'o-'.
o (ns’
"
a
-.J
KJ
^
70
r„ .
H^rc^xmeh •i'
»;;
1
*A***A0**-
pfiy^cxi
oio
T
wup’
H&V£. -Ov $ prcbk
I
Csu J /
V, .*.
:■
‘"X ‘
1 '• '• ■
''
V--.
'i
i
S
-i
i.
f
\
i
V
•S'.
?
i-
A
v
j.
cx
uj^<t
■s
r
S'
Sg?
>
- : r»V'
,$ >v;w
*■¥!.
is
I'f*-?-'
.
ipr.
•■"...... "‘r'A
\if4
-;S*
rss
■ 7Hl®r:
l$Sv&:
2SB8S
#! |gf
.1
i■ «*
Hr
m
ST
M-"‘
»K^ ‘ \
6
/»
m
■ ;?
,.JI \
,.
■~M M
*'3
V
Vr
.is-'
'*'.
ja
.. j'-**^*
*;
V-
Ip«5V-
br a :
mmrnrn
Emmz
.1
2»~
3^
V«-'
rv
V*
_i^ *' -
£
g|
V
ifljjfi
//
[\
7
:C-\
/
K1
3S;
P-
£5
fc"*\
<r
A
/'
'7
s>
t
w
i,<
»»<
ra
3*^
41*
is
.1 ’1'
&T ~"''
o
is
i'"
ro
SF
€*
W*
if'
fe.
*r
fcMCf
ite4^
HR
<«$ ,. »\
■■
y
v*
|L
a*
fiss
^Sv
‘
;1/. «wn»
I
tv. •vrfi >-->
\jt.
i.'rt
@4 f..
Bfr ■>
Jfew
*
IgSi
SR
£&&(& "1 *'&i
1
ta*
-4*
«r
iiljp&p
1
f%"
. .: ..: \
'M i
■J*
-,.** KjW
•i* *7 *
ZB
ȣ
*
%
4|flS
b ■
&kl
'JA
m
Iv.
*/
M?
Us
5-*.
j
«!■:,•■:
L
:'l
life
n C
rQ
c^ch
.
:u.': i
MillWi,il|-fif--^i >3
ggS?H \
7
V
o *
>
iS
•’ll
r
•-C
jfe.
Wh
ft:.
>
in
S'
rr•1
m
•V V
•
■>5 • ->T
V.
!
ft•.
; • /? /
.’
■>•*
i
±>s
kT*
■
m
,x;
-M
r*;
VINCENT DEWAYE GAYLORD
PLAINTIF
V.
SUPPLEMENT THE COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 23-4018-KHV-RES
29 APRIL 2023
STATE OF KANSAS
DEFENDANT
Motion to accept a settlement from the Defendant
EXIBIT1: Topeka Police cut me off and called me a fuck-tard, meaning retarded.
EXIBIT 2 I told the Topeka Police that I was filming them and they said get out of here monkey was
filming them and they said get out of here monkey, "fucking retard".
EXIBIT3 A Drom flying where I was at a thrift store, and the old lady said that is a drom. "I said your
right".
Exibit 4 These people cut me off and called me a retarded ass hole.
EXIBIT 5 This guy was at a park watching my son play. I asked him why he was just sitting there, and he
said none of my business. I told him that your sitting here watching my son. I called the police, and they
never showed up.
Exibit 5 The police kept looking at my car as if I was a criminal.
Exibit 6 Topeka police shouted "move your card retard, you monkey" I said I have to get around you can
you wait
EXIBIT 7 I Heard this police officer say they all are "fucking monkeys" meaning black people.
Topeka police are harassing me, and they are treating me as if I am a criminal, and I am not. They and
calling me names (defamation of character).
Harassing and defamation of character by the Topeka Police department is due from retaliation of me
retiring from the US Army due to discrimination.
(\
Brown V. BOARD OF EDUCATION
US ARMY RET
i
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.