Trackwell v. United States Government (2007)

See, e.g., Trackwell, 472 F.3d at 1247 (“In the context of judicial immunity from claims for damages, when a court clerk assists a court or a judge in the discharge of judicial functions, the clerk is considered the functional equivalent of the judge and enjoys derivative immunity.”).

Sep. 4, 2025). 5 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 6 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because [plaintiff] appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.”). theories . . . or [Plaintiff’s] unfamiliarity with pleading requirements.”7 However, it is not the proper role of a district court to “assume the role of advocate for the pro se liti…

The State Defendants include: (1) Governor of Kansas Laura Kelly; (2) Kansas Department of Agriculture (“KDA”) Secretary Mike Beam; (3) the KDA; (4) the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals (“BOTA”); (5) Kenny Titus, former chief legal counsel to the KDA and current Kansas senator; (6) Kansas Department of Revenue-Property Valuation Division (“PVD”); (7) David Harper, former director of PVD; (8) Debbie Beavers, director of the Kansas Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”); (9) the ABC; (…

Legal Standards Pro se complaints are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”2 A pro se litigant is entitled to a liberal construction of her pleadings.3 If a court can reasonably read a pro se complaint in such a way that it could state a claim on which it could prevail, it should do so despite “failure to cite proper legal authority . . . confusion of various legal theories . . . or [Plaintiff’s] unfamiliarity with pleading requirements…

Under the Eleventh Amendment, “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”19 “The Eleventh Amendment 14 Robbins, 519 F.3d at 1247 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 ). 15 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 16 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007…

P. 8(a)(2). 10 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79. 11 See id. at 678 (“The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” (citation omitted)). 12 Robbins, 519 F.3d at 1247 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 ). 13 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 14 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because [plaintiff] appears pro se, we review his pleadi…

Although Plaintiff’s suit will certainly be impacted by the Court’s consideration and partial grant of Allen’s Motion, the statute of limitations is a defense that Allen would have been able to raise at a later time.10 And here, there 6 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because [the litigant] appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.”). 7 See…

P. 8(a)(2). 11 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79. 12 See id. (“The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” (citation omitted)). 13 Robbins, 519 F.3d at 1247 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 ). 14 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 15 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because Mr. Trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings a…

On July 24, 2025, she filed an “Emergency Motion for Asset Preservation and Injunctive Relief” in which she seeks the Court to order the preservation of Lockton’s assets “to ensure the availability of funds for Plaintiff’s lifelong medical care.” No Responses to any of these motions have been filed. 1 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 2 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because [plaintiff] appears pro se, we review his pleadings an…

Co., 916 F.3d 1323, 1326 (10th Cir. 2019). 26 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 27 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because Mr. Trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.”). 28 Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). proper role of a district court to “assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant.”29 …

Mar. 10, 2006); see also Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1246 (10th Cir. 2007) (“For a district court to issue a writ of mandamus against an equal or higher court would be remarkable.”).1 In any event, “[m]andamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only in extraordinary circumstances.” Aref v. United States, 452 F.3d 202, 206 (2d Cir. 2006).

Barber v. Colorado Dep’t of Revenue, 562 F.3d 1222, 1228 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted). 7 Voelkel, 846 F. Supp. at 1483 . 8 See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243 . 9 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 10 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because [plaintiff] appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.…

Legal Standard Pro se complaints are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”2 A pro se litigant is entitled to a liberal construction of his pleadings.3 However, it is not the proper role of a district court to “assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant.”4 Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of …

Specifically, 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B) provides: 16 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 17 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because [plaintiff] appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.”). 18 Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 19 Id. 20 Djong v. Mayorkas, 2024 WL 5089985 , at *3 (D.

Jun. 24, 2020). 69 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because [plaintiff] appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.”). 70 K.S.A. § 60-513.

Jun. 24, 2020). 69 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because [plaintiff] appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.”). 70 K.S.A. § 60-513.

Considering the Court’s liberal construction of a pro se party’s filings, the Court respectfully disagrees that Plaintiff’s failure to identify the putative Additional Defendants in the caption of her Amended Complaint and/or the fact that Plaintiff’s “allegations render unclear what each individual did,” [id.], necessarily means that these Additional Defendants are not proper parties in this case, see, e.g., Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1244 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[I…

Legal Standard Pro se complaints are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”5 A pro se litigant is entitled to a liberal construction of his pleadings.6 If a court can reasonably read a pro se complaint in such a way that it could state a claim on which it could 2 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 3 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. 4 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. 5 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 6 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 …

See Trackwell v. United States, 472 F.3d 1242, 1246 (10th Cir. 2007) (“For a district court to issue a writ of mandamus against an equal or higher court would be remarkable.”).

Legal Standard Pro se complaints are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”2 A pro se litigant is entitled to a liberal construction of his pleadings.3 However, it is not the proper role of a district court to “assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant.”4 The Court has discretion whether to grant a motion to reconsider.5 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not formally recognize a “motion to reconsider.”6 But “a district co…

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 4 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 ). 5 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 6 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because Mr. Trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.”). 7 Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1…

Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a defendant may move for dismissal of any claim for which the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.6 Upon such motion, the court must decide “whether the complaint contains ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”7 A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads facts sufficient for the court to reasonably infer that t…

Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a defendant may move for dismissal of any claim for which the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.7 Upon such motion, the court must decide “whether the complaint contains ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”8 A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads facts sufficient for the court to reasonably infer that t…

Legal Standard A. Pro Se Litigants This Court notes that Plaintiff’s filings were prepared pro se, therefore his complaint is held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”5 A pro se litigant is entitled to a liberal construction of his pleadings.6 However, it is not the proper role of a district court to “assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant.”7 As it relates to motions to dismiss generally, the court “accept[s] the well-pleaded a…

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims against them in their official capacity are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.14 The Eleventh Amendment generally bars suits against states based on their sovereign immunity.15 10 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 11 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because Mr. Trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those d…

Legal Standards A. Pro Se Litigants Pro se complaints are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”3 Pro se litigants are entitled to a liberal construction of their pleadings.4 If a court can reasonably read a pro se complaint in such a way that it could state a claim on which it could prevail, it should do so despite “failure to cite proper legal authority . . . confusion of various legal theories . . . or [plaintiff’s] unfamiliarity with…

Any possible wrongdoing by Defendant would have occurred prior to the 9 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 10 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because Mr. Trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.”). 11 Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 12 Id. 13 K.S.A. 60-513(a). 14 K.S.A. 60-511(1). account’s termina…

Co., 545 F. App’x 750, 753 (10th Cir. 2013). 20 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 21 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because Mr. Trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.”). 22 Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 23 Id. 24 Ramirez v. Dep’t of Corr., Colo., 222 F.3d 1238, 1240 (10th Cir. 2000). 25 Ashcr…

Res., Ltd., 887 F.2d 1371 , 1376 (10th Cir. 1989)). 12 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 13 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because Mr. Trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.”). 14 Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 15 Id. as true and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”1…

P. 8(a)(2). 14 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79. 15 Id. 16 See id. (“The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”) (citation omitted). 17 Robbins, 519 F.3d at 1247 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 ). 18 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 19 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because Mr. Trackwell appears pro se, we review his plea…

This requested relief fundamentally falls afoul of the TIA—something noted by this Court in its previous order denying Plaintiff jurisdiction in federal court. 8 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 9 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because Mr. Trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.”). 10 Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, …

See Trackwell v. United States, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because [the plaintiff] appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.”) may accept, reject, or modify any or all of the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings…

P. Rule 15(a)(2), a motion to amend requires either “the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave,” and generally courts will “freely give leave when justice so 9 Robbins, 519 F.3d at 1247 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 ). 10 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 11 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because Mr. Trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent…

Y Dec. 21, 2017) (collecting cases); see also Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243-44 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n a pro se case when the plaintiff names the wrong defendant in the caption . . . courts may look to the body of the complaint to determine who the intended and proper defendants are.”); Lamb v. Davis, No. CV208-160, 2009 WL 982037 , at *2 (S.D.

Title VII contains a 21 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 22 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because Mr. Trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.”). 23 Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 24 Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276 , 1277 (10th Cir. 1994). venue provision, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(3), which has l…

These proceedings stemmed from 20 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 21 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because Mr. Trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.”). 22 Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 23 Id. 24 Ramirez v. Dep’t of Corr., Colo., 222 F.3d 1238, 1240 (10th Cir. 2000). 25 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, …

P. 8(a)(2). 7 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 . - 4 - whether the plaintiff’s allegations give rise to more than speculative possibilities.8 If the allegations in the complaint are “so general that they encompass a wide swath of conduct, much of it innocent, then the plaintiffs ‘have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.’ ”9 Pro se complaints are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”10 A pro se litigant is ent…

Barber v. Colorado Dep’t of Revenue, 562 F.3d 1222, 1228 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted). 6 Voelkel, 846 F. Supp. at 1483 . 7 See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991). 8 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 9 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because Mr. Trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent stan…

Judge Lungstrum, as a senior judge, carries a reduced caseload. 8 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because [the plaintiff] appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.”) (citation omitted). 9 Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 10 Plaintiff’s motion reads more as a response to the Commissioner’s motion for extension of time t…

“A plaintiff normally may not bring a Title VII action based upon claims that were not part of a timely-filed EEOC charge for which the plaintiff has received a right-to-sue-letter.”16 Although failure to timely file a charge is not a jurisdictional bar to courts hearing a plaintiff’s 10 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 11 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because Mr. Trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other pap…

Pro se parties Pro se complaints are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”9 A pro se litigant is entitled to a liberal construction of his pleadings.10 If a court can reasonably read a pro se complaint in such a way that it could state a claim on which it could prevail, it should do so despite “failure to cite proper legal authority . . . confusion of various legal theories . . . or [Plaintiff’s] unfamiliarity with the pleading requirem…

Because Defendant denied citizenship in Nebraska, and he had lived outside the United States off and on since 2021, there was a question of his domicile and whether the Court had diversity jurisdiction.19 Judge Birzer noted that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred or waived by judicial estoppel,20 and the Court must consider the facts of each case. 16 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). 17 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because [the plain…

Pro se parties Pro se complaints are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”12 A pro se litigant is entitled to a liberal construction of his pleadings.13 If a court can reasonably read a pro se complaint in such a way that it could state a claim on which it could prevail, it should do so despite “failure to cite proper legal authority . . . confusion of various legal theories . . . or [Plaintiff’s] unfamiliarity with the pleading require…

“A plaintiff normally may not bring a Title VII action based upon claims that were not part of a timely-filed EEOC charge for which the plaintiff has received a right-to-sue- letter” as per 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1).13 “This individual filing requirement is intended to 7 Mitchell v. City of Moore, 218 F.3d 1190, 1197 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664 , 670–71 (10th Cir. 1998)). 8 LifeWise Master Funding v. Telebank, 374 F.3d 917, 927 (10th…

Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction for “live, concrete” cases or controversies.13 Courts must therefore “decline to exercise jurisdiction where the award of any requested relief is moot.”14 9 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 10 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because [the plaintiff] appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent stand…

Co., 545 F. App’x 750, 753 (10th Cir. 2013). 7 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 8 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Because Mr. Trackwell appears pro se, we review his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.”). prevail, it should do so despite “failure to cite proper legal authority . . . confusion of various legal theories . . . or [Plaintiff’s] unfamiliarit…

Pro so plaintiff Pro se complaints are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”14 A pro se litigant is entitled to a liberal construction of his pleadings.15 If a court can reasonably read a pro se complaint in such a way that it could state a claim on which it could prevail, it should do so despite “failure to cite proper legal authority . . . confusion of various legal theories . . . or [Plaintiff’s] unfamiliarity with the pleading requi…

Summary judgement is appropriate. 4 Garrison v. Gambro, Inc., 428 F.3d 933, 935 (10th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 5 Mitchell v. City of Moore, 218 F.3d 1190, 1197 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664 , 670–71 (10th Cir. 1998)). 6 LifeWise Master Funding v. Telebank, 374 F.3d 917, 927 (10th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). 7 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 8 See Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Becau…

Analysis A. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment Under Title II of the ADA, “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”17 To prevail on a claim under this statute, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) he is a qualified individual with a disability, (2) w…

Kan. 1994). 12 Brezovski v. U.S. Postal Serv., 905 F.2d 334 , 335 (10th Cir. 1990). 13 Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (“But in a pro se case when the plaintiff names the wrong defendant in the caption or when the identity of the defendants is unclear from the caption, courts may look to the body of the complaint to determine who the intended and proper defendants are.”). disability.14 The ADA defines “covered entities” as “an employer, employme…