Cheatham (ID 2000064842) v. Howes et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
RYAN CHRISTOPHER CHEATHAM,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3091-JWL
JESSE HOWES, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has advised
Plaintiff on multiple occasions that he should refrain from filing anything other than his response
to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment at Doc. 79.
Plaintiff filed his response on March 24, 2026. (Doc. 87.) Defendants’ reply is due April 7, 2026.
See D. Kan. Rule 6.1(d)(1) (responses to dispositive motions are due within 21 days after the
motions is served and “[r]eplies must be filed within 14 days after the response is served”).
The Court has ordered Plaintiff to refrain from filing anything other than his response to
the dispositive motion on the issue of exhaustion, advising him that the issue of exhaustion must
be addressed prior to the merits of his claims. Despite the Court’s prior orders, Plaintiff continues
to file pleadings relating to the merits of his claims.
1. Plaintiff’s Second Motion and Permission to Provide Exhibit Lee’s Disciplinary Report
to Have on Record Follow Any Exhaustion of Remedy Motion by Defendants (Doc. 90)
Plaintiff once again seeks to have Taggart Lee’s disciplinary report made part of the record.
The Court noted in its March 20, 2026 Order that his prior motion and the attachment (the
disciplinary report) “were filed in this case and are part of the docket.” (Doc. 84, at 1.) Not only
is this a repetitive request, but it also involves an exhibit that prematurely addresses the merits of
Case 5:25-cv-03091-JWL Document 95 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Plaintiff’s claims.
Plaintiff then argues that the Court should grant expedited summary judgment because
Defendants have no credible rebuttal to his evidence contained in the disciplinary report. Plaintiff
asks the Court to order an expert witness to examine his forearm and to appoint counsel to “handle
the complex part of the next stages of this litigation if defendants wish to proceed.” (Doc. 90, at
4–5.) All of Plaintiff’s requests in the motion go to the meris of his claims and are premature. The
motion is denied without prejudice to refiling if this case survives the dispositive motion on the
issue of exhaustion.
2. Motion to Strike Defendants Affirmative Defense Rule 12(f) (Doc. 91)
Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the affirmative defense of
failure to exhaust his administrative remedies “is insufficient and it cannot succeed as a matter of
law.” (Doc. 91, at 2.) Plaintiff claims that he has responded in opposition and provided proof of
exhaustion. 	Id. 	Plaintiff claims the affirmative defense is “insufficient or immaterial and or
impertinent.” Id. at 3. This is the issue the Court will address after the time for Defendants to file
a reply has passed. The dispositive motion is not ripe for a decision at this time. Plaintiff’s motion
is denied.
3. Motion for Judgment on Pleadings or alter, Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 92)
In complete disregard for the Court’s prior orders, Plaintiff has filed his own dispositive
motion on the merits of his claims. The motion is denied without prejudice to refiling if this case
survives the dispositive motion on the issue of exhaustion.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion and Proposal to Courts and Defendants to Allow Oral Argument for
Deposition [sic] Motion to Dismiss/Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment
on Pleadings or Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment to Conclude Case (Doc. 93)
Plaintiff argues that an evidentiary hearing and oral argument would save the Court’s time
Case 5:25-cv-03091-JWL Document 95 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 3

3
and resources and finalize this case. (Doc. 93, at 1.) The Defendants’ motion to dismiss or for
summary judgment is not ripe. The Defendants’ reply is due by April 7, 2026. Plaintiff’s motion
is denied without prejudice.
5. Motion and Notice to Attach Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support of Following Motions by
Plaintiff (Doc. 94)
Plaintiff attaches an affidavit in support of his motions at Docs. 91, 92, and 93. 	Plaintiff
has filed his response to Defendants’ dispositive motion and included his declaration in his
response. See Docs. 87, 87–1. Nothing additional is due from Plaintiff at this time. The motions
he seeks to support with his declaration are being denied at this time. Plaintiff’s motion to attach
his declaration is denied.
6. Future Pleadings
Plaintiff should refrain from filing any additional pleadings until the Court has entered an
order ruling on Defendants’ dispositive motion on the issue of exhaustion. 	Any additional filings
submitted by Plaintiff may be summarily denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions (Docs. 91 and 94) are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions (Docs. 90, 92, and 93) are denied
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated March 31, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-03091-JWL Document 95 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 3