Lawson v. Kansas Department of Children and Families et al

2:25-cv-02171Ksd31 ott 2025

Testo completo

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANGELIINA LYNN LAWSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
KANSAS DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:25-cv-02171-JWB-TJJ
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause Why the Court Has
Not Ruled on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, Relief Under Rule 55(b)(2), and Emergency
Judicial Oversight (ECF No. 47). In her motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to show cause why it has
not ruled on pending motions and requests made in this matter, and to enter orders on pending
motions, among other relief.
Simply stated, Plaintiff’s motion is improper. “A show cause order is a procedural tool a
court may use to compel compliance with prior court orders, procedures, or legal
requirements.”1 It is defined as a “[c]ourt order, decree, execution, etc., to appear as directed, and
present the court such reasons and considerations as one has to offer why a particular order, decree,
etc., should not be confirmed, take effect, be executed, or as the case may be.”2 A show cause
order is the court’s way of requiring a party to explain their action or inaction. It is not, however,
a tool available to a party to make a request from or compel action by the court. Further, this Court
1 Wheeler v. Burlington, No. 25-1177-DDC-BGS, 2025 WL 2402265, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 19, 2025) (emphasis
added).
2 Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990).
Case 2:25-cv-02171-JWB-TJJ Document 57 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 2
2
has “the inherent authority to manage its dockets” and will resolve Plaintiff’s pending motions in
due course.3 As such, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Cause Why the Court Has
Not Ruled on Plaintiff’s Motions for Default Judgement, Relief Under Rule 55(b)(2), and
Emergency Judicial Oversight (ECF No. 47) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated October 31, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.
3 Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 47 (2016).
Teresa J. James
U. S. Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02171-JWB-TJJ Document 57 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 2

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.