govinfo:USCOURTS-ksd-2_25-cv-02506-3

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 
 
AKOSUA AAEBO-AKHAN, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. Case No. 25-2506-JWB 
 
 
D.C. DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, et al., 
 
 Defendants. 
 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 
 This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 29) to Magistrate Judge Angel 
Mitchell’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 28) recommending that the court dismiss 
this matter. For the reasons stated herein, the court ADOPTS the R&R, OVERRULES Plaintiff’s 
objection and DISMISSES the complaint. 
I. Facts and Procedural History 
 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pa uperis. Plaintiff filed this action against the 
D.C. Department of Behavioral Health and tw o of its employees, Robe rt Sherron and John Doe 
(also referred to as “Duane”). Plaintiff’s co mplaint was screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 
1915(e)(2)(B). Magistrate Judge Mitchell recommended that th e complaint be dismissed for 
failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). 
 Plaintiff has filed four total cases in this court: Case Nos. 25-2500, 25-2502, 25-2506, and 
25-2544. The court dismissed her co mplaint in Case No. 25-2500 an d entered judgment against 
her on January 16, 2026. That matter is currently pending appeal. Plaintif f’s complaint and its 
attached exhibits in this matter amount to 101 pages. The first six pages are the court’s form civil 
complaint and refer to a handwr itten portion for her statement of claim, relief sought, amounts 

2 
 
claimed, and reasons she is entitled to recover m oney damages. (Doc. 1.) The remaining pages 
and exhibits are also almost entirely handwritten and extremely difficult to decipher. (Docs. 1-1, 
1-2.) Plaintiff’s form complaint does not specify her claims and allegations but instead refers to 
her handwritten pages. 
Plaintiff alleges that this court has jurisdiction over this matter on the basis of both diversity 
and federal question. Plaintiff’s complaint appears to be very similar to the complaint this court 
dismissed in Case No. 25-2500. Pl aintiff poses questions which a ppear to address this court’s 
jurisdiction, alleges that she is a victim of sex tr afficking, and was trafficked at birth due to her 
Akan American genetic criteria. Plaintiff’s allegations also concern multiple criminal cases in the 
District of Columbia Superior Court. Plaintif f alleges that Defendants raped and sodomized her 
and subjected her to ongoing severe mental, physical, and emotional abuse. (Doc. 1-1 at 20.) All 
of this conduct allegedly occurre d during her cases in the Distri ct of Columbia and Defendants 
apparently provided information to the court regarding her mental health. These Defendants are 
all citizens of the District of Columbia. (Docs. 1 at 2; 1-5.) Plaintiff filed this action in Kansas 
because she contends that she is still a Kansas citizen due to her involuntary placement in a hospital 
in the District of Columbia. (Doc. 1 at 1.) However, Plaintiff has utilized a Washington, D.C. 
address in all her filings. 
Magistrate Judge Mitchell recommended dismissal on the basis that Plaintiff’s complaint 
fails to comply with basic pleading standards. Plaintiff filed an objecti on to Magistrate Judge 
Mitchell’s R&R. Plaintiff’s objection does not ev en address Rule 8 and instead attempts to add 
factual allegations regarding each Defendant. The court will address the sufficiency of the 
complaint. 
II. Standard 

3 
 
R&R Standard of Review. On a dispositive ma tter the district judge “must determine de 
novo any part of the magistrate j udge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A fail ure to properly object, ho wever, leaves a party with no entitlement to 
appellate review, and allows th e district court to review the R&R under any standard it deems 
appropriate. See Williams v. United States, No. 19-2476-JAR, 2019 WL 6167514, at *1 (D. Kan. 
Nov. 20, 2019) (citing United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop ., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 
1996)). When reviewing a magist rate judge’s ruling on a disposi tive matter, the district judge 
“must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s dispos ition that has been properly 
objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 
Pro Se Party. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court is to liberally construe her 
filings. Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008) However, liberally construing 
filings does not mean supplying additional factual allegations or constructing a legal theory on her 
behalf. Id. 
III. Analysis 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provide s that a complaint must contain “a short and 
plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction” and “a short and plain statement of the 
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and 
direct.” Rule 8(d)(1). Signi ficantly, Rule 8(a) does not establ ish a floor but “a ceiling (the 
complaint must be no more than ‘a short and plain statement’).” Frazier v. Ortiz, No. 06-1286, 
2007 WL 10765, at *2 (10th Cir. Jan. 3, 2007) (citing New Home Appliance Ctr., Inc. v. Thompson, 
250 F.2d 881, 883 (10th Cir. 1957)). Only a “generalized statement of the facts” is “permissible.” 
Id. Failure to comply with these pleading requirements can result in dismissal sua sponte. Nasious 
v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 and n. 2 (10th Cir. 2007) (“And, to be sure, 

4 
 
a failure to satisfy Rule 8 can supply a basis for dismissal: Rule 41(b) specifically authorizes a 
district court to dismiss an action for failing to comply with any aspect of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure.”). 
A complaint has two purposes: to provide the opposing partie s fair notice of the claims 
against them and to allow a court to determine whether a plaintiff is entitled to relief. Monument 
Builders of Greater Kan. City, Inc. v. Am. Cemetery Ass'n of Kan., 891 F.2d 1473, 1480 (10th Cir. 
1989). These purposes are thwarted when a co mplaint is unnecessarily long and includes “a 
morass of irrelevancies.” Baker v. City of Loveland , 686 F. App'x 619, 620 (10th Cir. 2017) 
(quoting Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir. 2007)). 
Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8. Plaintiff’s complaint and attached 
exhibits are 101 pages long and more than half of those pages are almost impossible to decipher. 
Therefore, it does not provide fair notice of her claims against th ese Defendants. Plaintiff has 
wholly failed to respond to Magistrate Judge M itchell’s decision finding that her complaint fails 
to comply with Rule 8. After review, the court finds that the complaint fails to comply with Rule 
8 and is subject to dismissal. 
Reviewing the objection, it appears that Plaintiff is attempting to put forth additional facts 
and arguments in support of her claims.
1 However, the court finds that amendment would be futile 
as the complaint would be subject to dismissal. It is clear from the complaint that Defendants 
would not be subject to personal jurisdiction in this court. See Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 
1217 (10th Cir. 2006) (court can consider these defenses sua sponte when it is clear from pleadings 
that Plaintiff cannot allege facts to support pers onal jurisdiction or venue). All of the conduct 
 
1 Plaintiff’s objection also contains three pages of citations to statutes, treaties, and case citations. (Doc. 39 at 1–3.) 
The court does not understand the purpose of this list of c itations and it appears that Plaintiff continues to copy this 
list from other filings in prior cases. In any event, the cour t declines to review all of these cases and citations as 
Plaintiff does not identify their purpose. The court is not obligated to make arguments on Plaintiff’s behalf. 

5 
 
complained about by these actors occurred in the District of Columbia and they are citizens of that 
district. Therefore, this court lacks personal jurisdiction over them . The court further finds that 
this matter would be subject to dismissal for improper venue for the same reasons. See 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1391. The court declines to transfer this matter due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 8. 
Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 
IV. Conclusion 
Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 29) to the R&R is OVERRULED and the R&R is ADOPTED. 
Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED for the reasons set forth herein. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 8th day of June, 2026. 
 ____s/ John W. Broomes__________________ 
 JOHN W. BROOMES 
 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight