Reynolds v. Kansas City Police Dept.

1
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
No. 119,372
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
TEILL S. REYNOLDS,
Appellant,
v.
KANSAS CITY, KS POLICE DEPT., et al.,
Appellees.



MEMORANDUM OPINION


Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; AARON T. ROBERTS, judge. Opinion filed May 10, 2019.
Affirmed.


Teill S. Reynolds, appellant pro se.



Daniel G. Obermeier, assistant district attorney, and Mark A. Dupree Sr., district attorney,
for appellees.



Before LEBEN, P.J., GREEN and POWELL, JJ.



PER CURIAM: Teill S. Reynolds appealed an order from the Wyandotte County
District Court denying his motions for summary judgment, for a writ of mandamus, and
for an injunction in a case that was dismissed three years previously for failure to state a
claim. Reynolds' failure to comply with Supreme Court rules prevents this court from
reaching his arguments on the merits. For this reason, we affirm.
2
Because Reynolds' brief is largely deficient of facts supported by citations to the
record, we draw our facts primarily from the State's brief.


This appeal rises from the notice of appeal Reynolds filed in case No. 14 CV

1113. In it, Reynolds apparently appeals an "order denying petitioner's motion for relief"
in No. 14 CV 1113 filed February 12, 2018. The State agrees with this assessment. This
order is also the only order in the record filed within 30 days of Reynolds' notice of
appeal.


In this order, Judge Aaron Roberts detailed Reynolds' extensive filings in the
Wyandotte County District Court, United States District Court, and Kansas Court of Tax
Appeals (COTA). The State's brief provides more details—supported by citations to the
record—about the proceedings Judge Roberts referenced.


Reynolds filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in Wyandotte County District
Court in November 2014; this was the beginning of case No. 14 CV 1113. In it, he
petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the Kansas Department of Revenue
(KDOR) to return money it seized as part of a drug tax assessment. The KDOR allegedly
got the money from the Kansas City Police Department, and the Kansas City Police
Department allegedly seized the money from Reynolds when they arrested him and
another resident of his apartment on drug charges. Reynolds maintains that the arrest and
seizures were unlawful.


On February 20, 2015, Judge Daniel Duncan dismissed Reynolds' petition for a
writ of mandamus for failure to state a claim. Reynolds then filed a "motion of claim and
relief" on March 19, 2015. It is unclear how the district court ruled on this motion, but
given later events in this case, it seems that the district court denied the motion. On
March 31, 2015, Reynolds filed a notice of appeal, appealing the February 20, 2015
3
dismissal of his petition for a writ of mandamus. According to Judge Roberts' order, this
court denied Reynolds' motion to docket that appeal out of time in the spring of 2016.


On August 14, 2016, Reynolds filed a "motion for determination of judgment
and/or relief of default and summary judgment." In it, he maintained that because the
State allegedly failed to respond to a motion for amendment of judgment and/or relief
that he filed in July 2016 in No. 14 CV 1113, the State was in default and he was entitled
to summary judgment and return of money he claimed was wrongfully seized. The State
responded, opposing the motion. The State considered the motion to be a K.S.A. 60-1507
motion and argued that none of the arguments that Reynolds raised could properly be
addressed via a 60-1507 motion. Reynolds responded.


Then, on November 28, 2017, Reynolds filed another motion "for mandamus and
injunction persuant [sic] to KSA 60-801 & Article 9." Reynolds again sought a court
order mandating the return of his seized money. It seems that Judge Roberts' February 12,

2018 order is based on this motion. Judge Roberts concluded:



"It is clear that Petitioner plans to appeal in perpetuity until he obtains the result he is
searching for. He will not find that result in this court. Petitioner has either failed to
appeal or lost each appeal that he has filed in as many as five different courts. None of
these courts at any time has ruled that the various claims alleged by Petitioner have any
merit. And no higher court has remanded any issue back to this court for further
proceedings. In Petitioner's instant motion he simply attempts to relitigate issues that
have already been decided by this or higher courts. This court is not a court of appeals.
As such, this motion is denied, and any similar motions filed in the future will be denied
as improper and moot."


Reynolds filed a notice of appeal on February 23, 2018. It stated:



"The petitioner comes sui juris in this above matter and gives notice to appeal as follows
4
"The petitioner objects to all isues presented by the judge the judge failed to make finding
of facts or conclusion of law on any issues that was presented in the petition, and failed to
comply with judge Micheal Grosko order to return property, the judgment in this case is
still Null and void due to (cota) lacking jurisdiction due to the state failed to respond and
being evasive the state is in default, due to the judge not ajudicating the case on the facts
or merit the petitoner is required to give notice to appeal under K.S.A 21-"


Does Reynolds' Briefing Deficiencies Prevent This Court From Reaching His

Arguments on the Merits?



Reynolds' brief is deficient and prevents this court from engaging his arguments
on their merits. While courts "liberally construe" pro se pleadings, "pro se litigants must
still follow procedural rules." Sperry v. McKune, 305 Kan. 469, 490, 384 P.3d 1003
(2016).


Failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 6.02(a)(5) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 34)



On appeal, Reynolds raises four issues:



"ISSUE I: The KCKPD lacked legal authority and was without subject matter, or
statutory jurisdiction to transfer custody of Reynolds' property, i.e., U.S. currency and
etc. . .
"ISSUE II: The KDOR and the KCOTA denied due process of law to Reynolds and
etc. . .
"ISSUE III: The Wyandotte county, Kansas district court failed to conduct a franks
hearing, where the accused requested such a proceeding due to conflicting information
and facts alleged by; and an officer excuting a search warrant.
"ISSUE IV: The plaintiff ·filed his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim in a timely manner within the
statutory time etc. . . ."
5
The State correctly points out that "Reynolds has not cited where any of the issues
he brings were raised or ruled on" below. The State further alleges that "[n]one of the
four issues Reynolds raises were ruled on by Judge Roberts." Rule 6.02(a)(5) requires an
appellant to provide for each issue raised, "a pinpoint reference to the location in the
record on appeal where the issue was raised and ruled on. If the issue was not raised
below, there must be an explanation why the issue is properly before the court." (2019
Kan. S. Ct. R. 35.)



Reynolds does not provide pinpoint references to where in the record his issues
were raised and ruled on. In fact, Reynold does not cite to any rulings or orders in the
case below, 14 CV 1113, at all. As this court recently stated, Rule 6.02(a)(5)


"is not simply a 'gotcha' from the appellate courts. . . . If litigants can raise a matter for
the first time on appeal, they would be free to, in essence, readjudicate the matter merely
because they forgot to raise everything they wanted to before the trial court or second-
guessed their tactical decisions at trial once they started preparing their appellate brief."
State v. Messner, 55 Kan. App. 2d 630, 641, 419 P.3d 642 (2018).


Here, Reynolds seeks to use his appellate brief as a vehicle for the same arguments
he has unsuccessfully made numerous times before the Wyandotte County District Court,
United States District Court, and the COTA. He attempts to do so despite the fact that his
arguments do not correspond with the issue ruled on in the order he is appealing: Judge
Roberts refused to allow Reynolds to relitigate a case that was apparently became final in
February 2015.


When litigants fail to provide a citation to the record showing where an issue was
raised and ruled on below, appellate courts presume the district court below did not rule
on the issue. See Kansas Medical Mut. Ins. Co. v. Svaty, 291 Kan. 597, 623-24, 244 P.3d
642 (2010). Thus, this court is left with no issues to consider because Reynolds has
provided this court with no citations in the record to where his issues were raised and
6
ruled on below. He also has not explained why he failed to raise these arguments below.
Our Supreme Court frequently reiterates that "Rule 6.02(a)(5) means what it says and is
ignored at a litigant's own peril." State v. Godfrey, 301 Kan. 1041, 1043, 350 P.3d 1068
(2015).


Failure to comply with Rule 6.02(a)(4) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 34)



Reynolds' brief also suffers from a second fatal flaw. He fails to comply with Rule

6.02(a)(4) which requires an appellant to include in his or her brief:



"A concise but complete statement, without argument, of the facts that are
material to determining the issues to be decided in the appeal. The facts included in the
statement must be keyed to the record on appeal by volume and page number. The court
may presume that a factual statement made without a reference to volume and page
number has no support in the record on appeal." (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 35.)


Further "[w]hen facts are necessary to an argument, the record must supply those
facts and a party relying on those facts must provide an appellate court with a specific
citation to the point in the record where the fact can be verified." Friedman v. Kansas
State Bd. of Healing Arts, 296 Kan. 636, 644, 294 P.3d 287 (2013). When a party fails to
designate and cite to such a record, the party's claim of error fails. 296 Kan. at 644.


Here, Reynolds provides no citations to the record in his statement of facts. He
provides scant citations in the following 47 pages of argument. Many of these citations
are incorrect and do not provide support for the preceding claims. Those citations that
are, in fact, correct are nevertheless insufficient to establish Reynolds' contentions of
error.


Reynolds' Issue I: "The KCKPD lacked legal authority and was without subject
matter, or statutory jurisdiction to transfer custody of Reynolds' property. . ." contains
7
two citations to the record. The first is as follows: "The Wyandotte County, Kansas
District Court Judge Mr. Michael Grosko (Division 5) on the date of September 23, 2013
signed an ORDER TO RELEASE PROPERTY PURSUANT TO K.S.A. 22-2512(3). (R.
IV, 9.)." In the designated record on appeal, R. IV, 9 refers to the first page of a "motion
to return property, amended" filed by Reynolds on September 6, 2013, in case No. 10 CR
856. The cited page does not reference any order. Thus, the citation does not provide
support for the assertion immediately preceding it.


The second citation under Issue I is:



"The Kansas City, Kansas Police Department, Property Officer, thereof, or the

Wyandotte County, Kansas Sheriff's department, or Property Officer thereof lacked legal
authority, (statutory, subject matter, or personal) jurisdiction to release into the custody
of, or to confer jurisdiction of the $4,321.00, to the Kansas Department of Revenue,
whether the release of the money was by consent or waiver, where the $4,321.00 was
being held as evidence in a criminal matter pending before the District Court had not
been finalized, the District Court had in rem jurisdiction of Reynolds' money and
property seized, and the District Court had not yet signed an ORDER TO DISPOSE OF
OR RELEASE PROPERTY PURSUANT TO K.S.A. 22-2512(3). This act committed by
the K.C.K.D.P. or Wyandotte County, Kansas Sheriff Department was done in violation
to the provisions and procedural mandates of K.S.A. 22-2512(a)(1),(2),(3) and K.S.A. (s)
60-4101 through 60-4104. (R. IV, 9.)."



R. IV, 9 is the same record citation explained above. Again, this first page of
Reynolds' September 6, 2013 motion to return property does not provide support for the
assertions in the preceding paragraph. The rest of Reynolds' Issue I is devoid of citations
but contains many factual assertions with no record support.


Reynolds' Issue II: "The Kansas Department of Revenue and the Kansa[s] Court
of Tax Appeals denied due process of law to Teill Reynolds . . ." contains no citations to
the record whatsoever.
8


Reynolds' Issue III: "The Wyandotte County, Kansas District Court failed to
conduct a Franks Hearing . . ." contains the most citations to the record of all Reynolds'
issues. Nevertheless, these citations are insufficient to support Reynolds' argument.


The first citation under Issue III is as follows: "Veronica Burton, on 6/22/2010
during an interview with the police who conducted the search warrant, stated that she was
selling drugs for Reynolds. However, (R. V, II, 9)." This record contains no volume V
nor a volume VII. Moreover, the citation also does not provide any support for the
preceding contention; it refers to a docket schedule for No. 10 CR 857, State v. Veronica
L. Burton.


The remaining citations under Issue III are to record volume III. Record volume
III is the transcript from a preliminary hearing in case No. 10 CR 856, State v. Teill
Reynolds. The hearing was held on May 4, 2012. Some of these citations do provide
support for specific facts in Reynolds' brief. For example, "(Vol. III, pg. 11-12)" does
provide factual support for Reynolds' assertion that "Burton under direct examination
testified to the following: (1) she pled guilty to seven felony drug crimes." Other
citations do not provide factual support for the preceding sentences. For example,
Reynolds cites to testimony from an Officer Shane Wright and says that the testimony
was "perjuried [sic]." The cited record pages, however, do not prove or demonstrate that
Wright committed perjury. Altogether these scant citations are insufficient for this court
to reach the merits of Reynolds' argument here.


Finally, Reynolds' Issue IV: "The Plaintiff filed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim in a
timely manner . . . " contains two citations to the record. The first reads: "'On September
13, 2013, the Wyandotte County, Kansas District Court, case no. 10-CR-856 ordered that
the property seized from Reynolds shall be released pursuant to K.S.A. 22-2512(3).' Vol.
9
II, 34." The given citation provides factual support for the contention; the citation refers
to an order that seized property be "released in accordance with K.S.A. 22-5212(3)."


The second citation under Issue IV is: "'On September 6, 2013 Reynolds filed a
Motion to Return Property in his criminal case.' (Vol, III, 9.)" Record volume III, page 9
does not support this contention, but Reynolds did correctly cite to his motion to return
property earlier in his brief, the correct citation for it is R. IV, 9.


These citations are insufficient to support Reynolds' argument here. In this section,
Reynolds appears to ask this court to find the statute of limitations was tolled for a 42
U.S.C. § 1983 claim. The only 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim Reynolds discusses in this section
is one he says he filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
Reynolds provides no citations to the record regarding that case, but even if he did, this
court would not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a United States District Court
decision.


Reynolds' brief suffers from two fatal errors. He fails to identify for this court
where his arguments were raised and ruled on below, and he fails to designate a record
sufficient to establish his assertions of error. Because this court is prevented from
reaching his arguments on the merits, we affirm.


Affirmed.