Crayton et al v. Boeing Company Employee Benefit Plan, The et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CRAYTON ADMINISTRATIVE
TRUST, by and through Trustee,
Larry Darnell Crayton,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 25-1175-JWB
THE BOEING COMPANY
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN, and
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On November 14, 2025, this court entered an order directing Plaintiff to find an attorney
to enter an appearance in this matter as only natural persons may proceed pro se in federal court.
(Doc. 18.) 	The court also directed Plaintiff to pay the filing fee as only natural persons are
permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id.) Plaintiff was given fourteen days to comply with
the court’s order. (Id.) This would place his deadline on November 28, 2025.
On December 1, 2025, after his deadline, Plaintiff filed a “Notice to the Court” in which
Mr. Crayton stated he was appearing only as the trustee of the Crayton Administrative Trust. (Doc.
19 at 1.) Plaintiff attached several documents to his filing, none of which reflect the payment of a
filing fee or the entry of appearance by a licensed attorney.
On December 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “Judicial Notice and Demand to Transfer to
Equity.” (Doc. 20.) Mr. Crayton renewed his “demand to transfer this matter to the Equity side
of the Court.” (Id.) It is well established that in the federal courts of the United States of America,
the powers of law and equity have been combined in a single Article III judge since the adoption
Case 6:25-cv-01175-JWB-GEB Document 21 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 2

2
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531, 539-40 (1970) (“Under
the Rules there is only one action—a ‘civil action’—in which all claims may be joined and all
remedies are available. Purely procedural impediments to the presentation of any issue by any
party, based on the difference between law and equity, was destroyed.”).
Neither of Plaintiff’s filings or any other activity in the case reflect that Plaintiff has paid
the filing fee or found a licensed attorney to enter an appearance. Therefore, in line with the court’s
prior order, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 6th day of January, 2026.
s/ John W. Broomes
JOHN W. BROOMES
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 6:25-cv-01175-JWB-GEB Document 21 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 2