Strader (ID 2000036315) v. City Confidential et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JAMES C. STRADER,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3260-JWL
CITY CONFIDENTIAL, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff and state prisoner James C. Strader, a Kansas prisoner currently incarcerated at
Hutchinson Correctional Facility (“HCF”) in Hutchinson, Kansas, brought this civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in December 2025. (Doc. 1.) He proceeds pro se and has paid the filing
fee. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is due on or before May 21, 2026. (Doc. 20.) This matter
comes now before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion April 17, 2026, which contains multiple
requests. (Doc. 22.) The Court will address each in turn.
First, Plaintiff purports to invoke his right to have a magistrate judge assigned to this case.
Id. at 1. Relatedly, Plaintiff later in the motion states that he “is also invoking his right to . . .
involve [a] magistrate judge panel at this time.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff cites no legal authority that
provides him with these asserted rights.
Local Rule 72.1.1(f) provides:
A magistrate judge may issue any preliminary orders and conduct any
necessary evidentiary hearing or other appropriate proceeding, and submit to a
judge a report containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the
disposition of petitions filed by prisoners pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . . . . When
specifically designated by a judge of the court and upon the consent of the parties,
a magistrate judge may conduct any or all proceedings in such cases, including the
conduct of a jury or nonjury trial, and may order the entry of a final judgment, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Case 5:25-cv-03260-JWL Document 24 Filed 05/04/26 Page 1 of 4

2
This language clearly reflects that a magistrate judge may issue certain orders and conduct
proceedings in this case, but it does not reflect that a plaintiff has the right to demand that a
magistrate judge participate. Similarly, Local Rule 72.1.2 addresses the assignment of matters to
magistrate judges and identifies proceedings for which cases “will” be assigned to a magistrate
judge, but nothing in Local Rule 72.1.2 provides Plaintiff with the right to have a magistrate judge
assigned to this case. Finally, as provided in section II(A)(3)(b)(iii) of the Administrative
Procedures for Filing, Signing, and Verifying Pleadings and Papers by Electronic Means in the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas: “Prisoner cases will initially be assigned to
the judge designated by the court to screen prisoner matters. Once the screening process has been
completed, both a district and magistrate judge (if appropriate) will be randomly assigned to the
matter.”
This case remains in the screening phase of proceedings; the Court has granted Plaintiff
time to file a second amended complaint. If this case survives screening, it will be randomly
reassigned to a district judge and, if appropriate, a magistrate judge. At this time, however, the
request for a magistrate judge is denied.
Next, Plaintiff asks the Court to send him copies of the “Court Rules and Law[]s of the
Court, and Fed. [sic]” (Doc. 22, p. 2.) The Court liberally construes this as a request to provide
Plaintiff with the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which will be denied.
When this case began, the Court mailed to Plaintiff a document titled “Case Opening Notice to
Prisoner Pro Se Litigants Filing Civil Right Complaints.’ The final page of that document contains
section 14, which states, in part: “The Clerk will not do the following . . . provide a copy of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Court’s Local Rules.” To the extent that Plaintiff asks the
Court to provide him, at no cost, a copy of the Local Rules and/or the Federal Rules of Civil
Case 5:25-cv-03260-JWL Document 24 Filed 05/04/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Procedure, the request is denied. Links to electronically access1 these resources are available,
however, through the Court’s website.
Finally, Plaintiff asserts that he “is also invoking his right to [a] Grand Jury and a Jury
Panel for decision[]s throughout this whole case and proceeding . . . .” (Doc. 22, p. 2.) Again,
Plaintiff identifies no legal authority that provides these rights. This failure notwithstanding, the
Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(a)
provide him the right to a trial by jury. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(a)( “The right of trial by jury as
declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution—or as provided by a federal statute—is
preserved to the parties inviolate.”); see also Dolence v. Flynn, 628 F.2d 1280, 1282 (10th Cir.
1980) (discussing the right to trial by jury in § 1983 actions).
Rule 38(b) explains how “a party may demand a jury trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b). Because
the motion now before the Court could be liberally construed as a demand for a jury trial, the Court
will instruct the clerk to update the docket to reflect Plaintiff’s jury trial demand. To be clear,
however, this will not entitle Plaintiff to have a jury panel make “decisions throughout this whole
case”; it will merely preserve Plaintiff’s demand for a trial by jury. Plaintiff does not specify what
other “decisions” in this case he believes he has the right to demand a jury decide. Thus, to the
extent that Plaintiff seeks a jury to play a role in this case outside of any trial that may occur, the
request is denied.
Similarly, Plaintiff’s demand for a grand jury is denied. Even liberally construed, it is not
clear what role Plaintiff envisions a grand jury playing in this case. To the extent that Plaintiff
1 The motion now before the Court asserts that “a block” has been installed on prison law library computers
“so they can control what you see.” (Doc. 22, p. 2.) The motion stops short, however, of asserting that
Plaintiff has been prevented from accessing the Rules he now seeks from this Court. If Plaintiff wishes to
base his request for a hard copy of the Local or Federal Rules on a claim that he is being prevented from
accessing necessary legal resources, he must provide the Court with additional information about his
attempts to do so.
Case 5:25-cv-03260-JWL Document 24 Filed 05/04/26 Page 3 of 4

4
seeks a grand jury in order to pursue criminal charges against a defendant, Ҥ 1983 does not allow
[an individual] to pursue [remedies for] a violation of federal criminal law.” See Lynch v. Bulman,
2007 WL 2993612, at *2 (10th Cir. 2007) (unpublished order and judgment) (citing Newcomb v.
Ingle, 827 F.2d 675, 676 (10th Cir. 1987); Clements v. Chapman, 189 Fed. Appx. 688, 692 (10th
Cir. 2006) (unpublished); and Henry v. Albuquerque Police Dept., 49 Fed. Appx. 272, 273 (10th
Cir. 2002) (unpublished)).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the motion (Doc. 22) is denied
for the reasons set forth in this order. Because the motion could be liberally construed to include a
jury trial demand, however, the clerk is directed to update the docket to reflect Plaintiff’s demand
for a jury trial. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint remains due on May 21, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated May 4, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-03260-JWL Document 24 Filed 05/04/26 Page 4 of 4