Cowan v. Kansas Department of Children and Families et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
LATAWNYA DENISE COWAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-4131-DDC-RES
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Latawnya Denise Cowan1 has filed a motion asking the court to dismiss this
action without prejudice. Doc. 17 at 1. The court liberally construes the motion as a notice of
voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)—a self-executing notice that the court
needn’t authorize. See Janssen v. Harris, 321 F.3d 998, 1000 (10th Cir. 2003) (explaining that
when a plaintiff gives a “clear statement” requesting dismissal, “no action is required on the part
of the court”). The court thus directs the Clerk of Court to treat plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 17) as a Notice of Dismissal and close this case.
Plaintiff’s filing also asks the court to acknowledge that she didn’t consent to a magistrate
judge overseeing her case. Doc. 17 at 4. Plaintiff misunderstands the governing law. The
relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), “authorizes a judge to designate a magistrate judge to
hear and determine any pretrial matter except for certain dispositive motions listed therein.”
1 	Plaintiff proceeds pro se. The court construes her filings liberally and “hold[s] [them] to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). But the court doesn’t “assume the role of
advocate for the pro se litigant.” Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
Case 5:25-cv-04131-DDC-RES Document 18 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Clark v. Poulton, 963 F.2d 1361, 1363 (10th Cir. 1992). And § 636(b)(1)(B) “authorizes a judge
to designate a magistrate judge to conduct evidentiary hearings and submit proposed findings
and recommendations” on dispositive motions, criminal defendants’ applications for post-trial
relief, and certain prisoner petitions. Id. This misunderstanding aside, the court declines to
“acknowledge” anything. Plaintiff has dismissed this case, so there’s no live controversy for the
court to address. And the Constitution prohibits the court from issuing advisory opinions about
plaintiff’s results in her appearances before a magistrate judge. See Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d
1012, 1025 (10th Cir. 2011) (explaining mootness of claims for declaratory relief and requiring
claims for declaratory relief to settle “some dispute which affects the behavior of the defendant
toward the plaintiff” (quotation cleaned up)).
Plaintiff also asks the court to permit refiling. Doc. 17 at 4. The court declines to do
so—refiling is up to plaintiff. The court notes that Magistrate Judge Rachel Schwartz has
compiled the many lawsuits plaintiff has filed and “strongly caution[ed] Plaintiff that before
filing any lawsuit . . . she must ensure her claims are warranted by existing law or by a
nonfrivolous argument for altering the law.” Doc. 14 at 2–3. Plaintiff would do well to heed
Judge Schwartz’s warning.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the Clerk of the Court
should treat plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17) as a Notice of Dismissal and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 15th day of April, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree______
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-04131-DDC-RES Document 18 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 2