Strahler v. United States Department of Agriculture et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KERI ANN STRAHLER,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 25-4105-JWB
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, et al.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motions to dismiss. (Doc. 8, 12.) On October
29, 2025, in the middle of the 2025 United States federal government shutdown, pro se Plaintiff
Keri Ann Strahler filed this lawsuit asking this court to order the United States Department of
Agriculture to release “6 billion in SNAP contingency funds as well as 3 billion dollars in tariff
revenues to be released to SNAP consumers for the month of November.” (Doc. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff
claimed she was entitled to relief because, “[d]efendant injured dignity of SNAP consumers with
HATCH Act violation and threatens them with food insecurity by halting SNAP benefits in the
month of November, hoping to force Senate Democrats to stop negotiation attempts to address
rising health insurance costs with Republicans in a government shutdown, in light of 2026
elections.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 7.)
On November 12, 2025, the federal government shutdown ended. 	Prior to that, on
November 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss because her damages “ha[d] been satisfied
with the release of SNAP funds on October [sic] 7, 2025, by an order from the Honorable Judge
McConnell of The U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island.” 	(Doc. 8 at 1.) 	However, on
Case 5:25-cv-04105-JWB-RES Document 13 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 2

2
November 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed an exhibit in support of her complaint which appears to be a
completed form to report a Hatch Act complaint to the Department of Justice. (Doc. 9.)
Because of this filing, the court assumed Plaintiff sought to continue her lawsuit.
Magistrate Judge Rachel E. Schwartz denied Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel and
required Plaintiff to amend her complaint by December 12, 2025, to address deficiencies. (Docs.
10, 11.) Rather than amend her complaint, Plaintiff filed another motion to dismiss. (Doc. 12.)
Plaintiff admitted that she did not, as the Magistrate Judge explained, have standing to pursue her
claim. 	(Doc. 12 at 1.) 	The court appreciates Plaintiff’s candor and GRANTS her motions to
dismiss. (Docs. 8, 12.)
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 11th day of December, 2025.
s/ John W. Broomes
JOHN W. BROOMES
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-04105-JWB-RES Document 13 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 2