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 timely paid the filing fee. The Court
screened the complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and (b) and, on February 4, 2026,
issued a memorandum and order (“M&O”) directing Plaintiff to show cause why the complaint
should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. (Doc. 7.) On
March 2, 2026, the Court received a response from Plaintiff that referred to an order “the court had
sent on the date of February[]16[, ]2026.” (Doc. 11, p. 1.) Although not easy to understand, the
response asked for “60 days leave to locate the amendment and to amend suit[],” so the Court
liberally construed it as a motion to amend the complaint and, on March 3, 2026, issued an order
granting Plaintiff time in which to file an amended complaint that states a plausible claim for relief
against a named defendant. (See Doc. 11.)
The following day, however, the Court received from Plaintiff a motion to amend the
complaint; attached to the motion were a proposed amended complaint and attachments. (Doc.
10.) Therefore, the Court vacated its March 3, 2026 order; granted the March 4, 2026 motion to
Case 5:25-cv-03260-JWL Document 20 Filed 04/01/26 Page 1 of 4

2
amend; and screened the amended complaint. (Doc. 11.) On March 17, 2026, the Court issued an
order dismissing this matter because the amended complaint failed to state a claim on which relief
could be granted and included claims and defendants the Court identified as improper in the
February 4, 2026 M&O. (Doc. 13.) Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 14.)
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal (Doc. 15) and a motion for reconsideration (Doc. 16). The
Tenth Circuit docketed the appeal and then abated it so that this Court may rule on the motion for
reconsideration. (Doc. 19.) Although Plaintiff does not identify the legal authority under which he
asks this Court to reconsider its dismissal of this case, the motion is liberally construed as being
brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The Court may grant a motion to alter or
amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) only if the moving party establishes: (1) an intervening change
in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that could not have been obtained
previously through the exercise of due diligence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice. Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 294 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000); see
also D. Kan. Rule 7.3 (setting forth similar standards for motion to reconsider).
Liberally construed, the motion for reconsideration explains that Plaintiff gave HCF staff
a motion to amend on February 6, 2026. (Doc. 16, p. 1.) This timing means that Plaintiff drafted
the motion to amend and the attached proposed amended complaint without knowledge of the
deficiencies identified in the Court’s February 4, 2026 order. When Plaintiff learned of the
February 4, 2026 order, he filed the response that sought additional time in which to amend the
complaint—this is the response that the Court liberally construed as a motion to amend and granted
on March 3, 2026. (See Docs. 8 and 9.)
In part, the Court liberally construed the response in this manner because it was unaware
of and had not yet received the motion to amend Plaintiff gave to HCF staff for e-filing on February
Case 5:25-cv-03260-JWL Document 20 Filed 04/01/26 Page 2 of 4

3
6, 2026. Plaintiff advises in the motion to reconsider that rather than promptly e-filing the motion
to amend, “Unit Team Hornback held it in his desk” until March 4, 2026 and only filed it after
another individual “had him look through his desk.” (Doc. 16, p. 1.) Thus, although the Court
understood the motion to amend to be in response to the M&O identifying deficiencies in the initial
complaint, that was not accurate.
The Court’s understanding and construction of Plaintiff’s pro se submissions in this case
was based, in part, on the order in which they were submitted to the Court and the timing of
Plaintiff’s motions in relation to the Court’s orders. The information in the motion for
reconsideration reveals that, through no fault of Plaintiff, there was a significant delay in the
submission to this Court of the motion to amend the complaint. Moreover, it appears that the Court
misunderstood the purpose of at least some of Plaintiff’s pro se submissions, a misunderstanding
that contributed to this Court’s decision to dismiss this case. In light of this information, the Court
agrees with Plaintiff that this matter should be reopened and the Court will grant the motion for
reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); D. Kan. Rule 7.3(3).
The Court therefore will direct the Clerk to reopen this matter and to vacate the
memorandum and order of dismissal (Doc. 13) and the judgment (Doc. 14). The Court also will
direct the Clerk to mail Plaintiff the form on which he should file his second amended complaint.
Plaintiff will be granted time in which to file a second amended complaint. The second amended
complaint will become the controlling pleading in this case, replacing the initial complaint and the
amended complaint. Once the second amended complaint is received and filed, the Court will
conduct the statutorily required screening and will issue further orders as necessary. If Plaintiff
fails to timely file a second amended complaint, this case will proceed on the currently controlling
Case 5:25-cv-03260-JWL Document 20 Filed 04/01/26 Page 3 of 4

4
amended complaint (Doc. 12) and may be dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim for relief
without further prior notice to Plaintiff.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the motion for reconsideration
(Doc. 16) is granted. The Clerk shall vacate the memorandum and order dismissing this case
(Doc. 13) and the judgment (Doc. 14). Plaintiff is granted until and including May 21, 2026 to file
a second amended complaint on the required, court-approved form that will become the controlling
pleading in this case. The Clerk shall mail Plaintiff the appropriate form for filing a second
amended complaint. If Plaintiff timely files a second amended complaint, the Court will screen it
and issue further orders as necessary. The Clerk shall transmit a copy of this order to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated April 1, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-03260-JWL Document 20 Filed 04/01/26 Page 4 of 4