Jaycee Deangelo Deggs v. State of Kansas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS JAYCEE DEANGELO DEGGS, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 26-3098-JWL STATE OF KANSAS, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights case titled “Motion for Civil Wrongs.”1 (Doc. 1, at 1.) Plaintiff is in custody at the Sedgwick County Detention Facility in Wichita, Kansas. On April 21, 2026, the Court entered a Notice of Deficiency (Doc. 3) (“NOD”) granting Plaintiff until May 21, 2026, to submit his complaint on the Court-approved form and to either pay the civil action filing fee or submit a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Injunction (Doc. 2) asking the Court to respect his constitutional rights. (Doc. 2, at 1.) Plaintiff claimed that he was wrongly imprisoned and set forth alleged errors in his state criminal proceedings. Id. at 2–6. Plaintiff’s motion did not set forth what injunctive relief he was seeking. On May 4, 2026, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order (Doc. 4) denying the motion, and stating that “the May 21, 2026 deadline to correct the deficiencies set forth in the Court’s NOD at Doc. 3 remains in effect . . . [f]ailure to comply by the Court’s deadline may result in the dismissal of this matter without further notice for failure to comply with the Court’s order.” (Doc. 4, at 2.) Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s NOD by the Court’s deadline.

1 Plaintiff also references a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1, at 7.)

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “authorizes a district court, upon a defendant’s motion, to order the dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or ‘a court order.’” Young v. U.S., 316 F. App’x 764, 771 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). “This rule has been interpreted as permitting district courts to dismiss actions sua sponte when one of these conditions is met.” Id. (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962); Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003)). “In addition, it is well established in this circuit that a district court is not obligated to follow any particular procedures when dismissing an action without prejudice under Rule 41(b).” Young, 316 F. App’x at 771–72 (citations omitted).

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s NOD by the Court’s deadline. As a consequence, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with court orders.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated May 26, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.

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