govinfo:USCOURTS-ksd-2_25-cv-02502-3

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 
 
AKOSUA AAEBO-AKHAN, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. Case No. 25-2502-JWB 
 
 
SARAH CONNELL, et al., 
 
 Defendants. 
 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 
 This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 39) to Magistrate Judge Angel 
Mitchell’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 38) 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 pauperis. Plaintiff filed this action against 
Defendants Sarah Connell, Sean C. Staples, Teresa Grant, Maritta L. Ki ng, D.C. Forensics, and 
the United States Marshals Service. Plaintiff’s complaint 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 100 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 money damages. (Doc. 1.) There are 22 handwritten 
pages, and another 65 pages of ex hibits that are also handwritten and extremely difficult to 
decipher. (Docs. 1-2, 1-3.) Plaintiff’s form complaint does not specify her claims and allegations 
but instead refers to her handwritten pages. The handwritten exhibit includes what appears to be 
a filing and documents that Plaintif f prepared for a case in District of Columbia Superior Court. 
(Doc. 1-3.) The exhibit is very difficult to read and in places appears photocopied with very small 
handwriting and more writing in the margins. 
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. As in her othe r case, she alleges that she was trafficked by the 
“white Jewish mafia” and some “Cherokee Indians.” (Doc. 1-2 . at 13.) She claims that her 
children were fathered by Kwesi Akhan, and that she and her children have unsuccessfully 
attempted to escape sex and human trafficking. (Doc. 1-2.) Plaint iff’s allegations also concern 
multiple cases in the District of Columbia Superior Court. Plaintiff complains of actions 
undertaken in that court by Defenda nts District of Columbia Superi or Court Judge Sean Staples, 
Assistant Attorney General Sarah Connell, Teresa Grant, a psychologist, Marnitta King, Plaintiff’s 
public defender, and D.C. Forensics. Although di fficult to decipher, Pl aintiff comp lains of a 
psychological examination ordered in her criminal cases and the findings by Ms. Grant. Plaintiff 
further complains about the ruli ngs made by Judge St aples and the representation by Ms. King, 
asserting that she provided ineffective assistance of counsel. All of this conduct allegedly occurred 
during her cases in the District of Columbia. Thes e Defendants are all citizens of the District of 

3 
 
Columbia or Maryland. (Doc. 1-5.) Plaintiff’s complaint states that she did not seek administrative 
remedies before filing this action. (Doc. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff filed th is action in Kansas because she 
contends that she is still a Kans as citizen due to her involuntary placement in a hospital in the 
District of Columbia. 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 
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. 

4 
 
III. Analysis 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) provides 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, 
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 100 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 

5 
 
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 notes that amendment would be futile 
as the complaint would be subject to dismissal. As to Defendant United States Marshal’s Service, 
any claim is barred by sovereign immunity. See Trapp v. U.S. Marshals Serv ., 139 F. App'x 12, 
14 (10th Cir. 2005). And, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to proceed against the United States under 
the waiver of sovereign immunity in the Federa l Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), she cannot because 
she has not exhausted her administrative remedies. Id. (citing McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 
106, 113 (1993)). 
As to the remaining Defendants, some or all are entitled to judicial immunity, quasi-judicial 
immunity, or prosecutorial immunity for their acti ons in the numerous crim inal and civil actions 
in the District of Columbia th at Plaintiff complains about. Moss v. Kopp , 559 F.3d 1155, 1163 
(10th Cir. 2009) (judicial immun ity and quasi-judicial immunity); Chilcoat v. San Juan County , 
41 F.4th 1196, 1208 (10th Cir. 2022) (prosecutorial immunity). Further, they 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 pl eadings that Plaintiff 
cannot allege facts to support personal jurisdiction or venue). All of the conduct complained about 
by these actors occurred in the District of Columbia and they either are citizens of that District or 
of the State of Maryland. Theref ore, this court lacks personal ju risdiction over them. The court 
further finds that this matter would be subject to dismissal for improper venue for the same reasons. 
 
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. 

6 
 
Moreover, it is very likely that Plaintiff’s claims would be subject to dismissal under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine or Younger abstention as this court discussed in its prior order dismissing 
Plaintiff’s complaint in Case No. 25-2500.2 
Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 
IV. Conclusion 
Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 39) 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 
 
 
 
2 In her objection, which is easier to decipher as it is type d, Plaintiff appears to seek dismissal of a criminal charge 
that was filed against her earlier this year . (Doc. 39 at 6.) Plain tiff also asserts that certain rules of the District of 
Columbia were not followed in her D.C. cases and that she was not properly provided with service of certain 
documents. 

Passage view · GavelSight