Thompson v. Howard et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
RICHARD BRIAN THOMPSON, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	CIVIL ACTION
)
v. 	) 	No. 25-2497-KHV
)
LAURA HOWARD, in her official and individual 	)
capacity as Secretary of the Kansas Department 	)
for Children and Families, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
____________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On October 24 and 26, 2025, defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. See
Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Filed By Defendants Laura Howard, Secretary For The
Kansas Department For Children And Families, Kelly Milner, Jessica Kline, Julie Homolka,
Angela Helmuth, And Nicolas Kennedy, In Their Official And Individual Capacities As
Employees Of KDCF And Memorandum In Support Of Same (Doc. #25); Defendant Jenni
Harshbarger, Ph.D.’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint For Failure To State A Claim (Doc.
#26). This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion To Stay Or Extend Time To Respond
To Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Pending Determination Of Waiver, Forfeiture, and Admission
Issues (Doc. #28) filed November 6, 2025 and Plaintiff’s Combined Motion For Summary
Judgment And For Dismissal Of Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss As Procedurally Barred, Based
On The Established Record Of Forfeiture And Admission By Failure To Deny (Doc. #30, re-filed
as Doc. #31) filed November 9, 2025. Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell previously overruled
plaintiff’s motion to stay the case. See Order (Doc. #29) filed November 10, 2025. For reasons
stated below, the Court strikes plaintiff’s combined motion for summary judgment and for
Case 2:25-cv-02497-KHV-ADM Document 35 Filed 11/19/25 Page 1 of 4

-2-
dismissal of defendants’ motions but sustains plaintiff’s motion to extend the deadline to respond
to defendants’ motions to dismiss.
The Court construes plaintiff’s pro se complaint liberally and holds it to a less stringent
standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th
Cir. 1991). The Court does not, however, assume the role of advocate for a pro se litigant. Id. A
pro se litigant must follow the same rules of procedure that govern all other litigants. Hardy v.
Rabie, 147 F.4th 1156, 1163 (10th Cir. 2025).
Plaintiff’s combined brief in support of his motion for summary judgment and response to
defendants’ motions to dismiss is 60 pages in length and includes 692 pages in exhibits. Plaintiff’s
brief does not comply with the District of Kansas rules as follows: (1) it is not double-spaced (see
D. Kan. Rule 5.1(a)), (2) it exceeds the 40-page limit for summary judgment motions and the 15-
page limit for responses to motions to dismiss (see D. Kan. Rule 7.1(d)(2)–(3)), and (3) it does not
begin with a section that contains a concise and numbered statement of material facts as to which
the movant contends no genuine issue exists and which refers with particularity to those portions
of the record upon which movant relies (see D. Kan. Rule 56.1(a)). For these reasons, the Court
strikes Plaintiff’s Combined Motion (Doc. #30, re-filed as Doc. #31).
Plaintiff’s combined brief also improperly incorporates voluminous materials by reference.
See Plaintiff’s Combined Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #30 and #31) at 5 (plaintiff
“incorporates by reference the state-court filings and docket entries”); id. at 13 (“All prior filings
are incorporated by reference”); id. at 58 (all factual and statutory allegations set forth in state
court briefs are “incorporated by reference in full”). Such broad incorporation hinders the Court’s
ability to review the merits of the substantive arguments and unfairly allows a party to avoid page
limitations. 	Concrete Works of Colo., Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 321 F.3d 950, 979 n.14
Case 2:25-cv-02497-KHV-ADM Document 35 Filed 11/19/25 Page 2 of 4

-3-
(10th Cir. 2003). 	Unless a party incorporates limited material which does not exceed the page
limit when added to the other material in the brief, the Court will disregard materials which a party
attempts to incorporate by reference. The Court also notes that for more than 100 case citations,
plaintiff’s combined brief does not include pinpoint cites, i.e. the exact page or pages where the
cited proposition is found. 	The Court advises plaintiff that this type of citation is discouraged.
Such broad references provide little aid to the Court or opposing counsel to understand specifically
how the cited case supports plaintiff’s argument.
Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file a brief in response to defendants’ motions to
dismiss. The Court sustains plaintiff’s request. On or before December 5, 2025, plaintiff shall
file a response to each motion to dismiss. Each response shall comply with District of Kansas
rules and this Memorandum And Order, and shall be limited to 15 pages.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Combined Motion For Summary
Judgment And For Dismissal Of Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss As Procedurally Barred, Based
On The Established Record Of Forfeiture And Admission By Failure To Deny (Doc. #30, re-filed
as Doc. #31) filed November 9, 2025 is STRICKEN.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion To Stay Or Extend Time To
Respond To Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Pending Determination Of Waiver, Forfeiture, and
Admission Issues (Doc. #28) filed November 6, 2025 is SUSTAINED in part. 	On or before
December 5, 2025, plaintiff shall respond to the Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint
Filed By Defendants Laura Howard, Secretary For The Kansas Department For Children
And Families, Kelly Milner, Jessica Kline, Julie Homolka, Angela Helmuth, And Nicolas
Kennedy, In Their Official And Individual Capacities As Employees Of KDCF And
Memorandum In Support Of Same (Doc. #25) and Defendant Jenni Harshbarger, Ph.D.’s
Case 2:25-cv-02497-KHV-ADM Document 35 Filed 11/19/25 Page 3 of 4

-4-
Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint For Failure To State A Claim (Doc. #26). 	Each
response shall comply with District of Kansas rules and this Memorandum And Order, and
shall not exceed 15 pages.
Dated this 19th day of November, 2025 at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02497-KHV-ADM Document 35 Filed 11/19/25 Page 4 of 4