Samuel Roman v. Jeffery Miller, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SAMUEL ROMAN, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 26-3011-JWL JEFFERY MILLER, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is in custody at the Sumner County Jail in Wellington, Kansas. On February 26, 2026, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order (Doc. 7) dismissing this matter as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend, and the Court denied the motion on March 10, 2026. (Docs. 9, 10.) This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s second Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 11) filed on March 26, 2026.

Plaintiff’s first motion to amend was filed after this case was dismissed. In denying Plaintiff’s first motion to amend, the Court found that Plaintiff continued to make claims regarding his state court criminal proceedings, failed to address the Heck bar, failed to allege that his conviction or sentence had been invalidated, and that the state court docket did not reflect an invalidation. (Doc. 10, at 1–2.) The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to attach a proposed amended complaint as required by the Court’s Local Rules. See D. Kan. Rule 15.1(a)(2).

Plaintiff’s current motion also fails to attach a proposed amended complaint as required by the Court’s Local Rules. Instead, Plaintiff has attached 48 pages of exhibits and filed a separate 349-page supplement.1 (Docs. 11–1 and 12.) Most of the pleadings are copies of transcripts and documents from his state criminal proceedings. Id. Plaintiff seeks to change the Plaintiff’s name in this case to Tree of Life Kennels, Arise Up LLC, and Summer Faye Roman (Plaintiff’s wife). (Doc. 11, at 1.) Plaintiff then suggests that the Heck bar would no longer apply because the newly-named businesses are owned by Summer F.

Roman. Id. He argues that his claims should also be considered his wife’s claims because “in the eyes of the law we are one.” (Doc. 11–1, at 1.) It is well-settled that a § 1983 claim must be based on the violation of Plaintiff’s personal rights and not the rights of someone else. Archuleta v. McShan, 897 F.2d 495, 497 (10th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). To have standing, a prisoner must state “specific facts connecting the allegedly unconstitutional conditions with his own experiences [in the prison], or indicat[e] how the conditions caused him injury.” Swoboda v. Dubach, 992 F.2d 286, 289 (10th Cir. 1993). This case is closed. If Plaintiff’s wife believes she has claims based on the violation of her own constitutional rights, she should bring her own cause of action.2 The Court dismissed this case, finding that “this action seeking damages is barred by Heck.”3 (Doc. 10, at 2) (citing Doc. 7, at 6.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s first motion to amend, finding that nothing in Plaintiff’s motion suggested otherwise. Id The same reasoning applies to Plaintiff second motion to amend. Plaintiff’s second motion to amend is denied, and this case remains closed. Any further motions filed in this closed case may be summarily denied.

Plaintiff continues to file voluminous documents in this closed case. The documents are received in the mail and require Court staff to scan each page. These filings—filed in a closed case—present an undue burden on limited Court resources. If Plaintiff continues to file voluminous documents in this closed case, the Court may consider filing restrictions.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s second Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 11) is denied. This case remains closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated March 27, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.

S/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE