Gatlin v. Borgerstock et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
LARRY E. GATLIN, III,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 26-3354-JWL
BRENNON BORGERSTOCK, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed this civil action on August 10, 2026 in the District Court of Johnson County,
Kansas. (Doc. 1-2, p. 1.) He is in custody at the Wyandotte County Detention Center in Kansas
City, Kansas. This case was removed to this Court by Defendant Brennon Borgerstock on
September 23, 2026, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. (Doc. 1.) On September 29, 2026,
counsel for Defendants Shane Adams and Kyle McCullough entered an appearance in this case
and obtained a Clerk’s order extending the time in which to file their responsive pleading to
Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. 5.) The following Defendants have not yet entered an appearance in
this case: the Wyandotte County Board of Commissioners (“the Board”), Jonathan Cortes, M.T.
Johnson, S.N. Avenado, and the Unified Government of Wyandotte County (“the Unified
Government”).
This case is currently in the screening phase of proceedings and the deadline for Defendants
to file an answer or responsive pleading is stayed. (See Doc. 6.) On October 2, 2026, the Court
received from Plaintiff a motion to remand to the state court or, in the alternative, for default
judgment. (Doc. 7.) Since Plaintiff is a prisoner and proceeds pro se, “he may rely on the ‘prison
mailbox rule,’ which makes the date on which he presented his motion to prison officials for
Case 5:26-cv-03354-JWL Document 10 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 3

2
mailing the filing date for timeliness purposes.” See United States v. Hopkins, 920 F.3d 690, 696
n.8 (10th Cir. 2019). The postmark on the envelope in which Plaintiff mailed his motion to this
Court reflects that at the latest, Plaintiff gave his motion to officials for mailing on September 29,
2026. (Doc. 7-1.)
In the motion, Plaintiff asserts that before the case was removed to this Court, he filed in
state court a motion for default judgment against Defendants Cortes, Johnson, Avenado, the Board,
and the Unified Government. (Doc. 7, p. 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the state district
court received his motion on September 20, 2026 and he asks this Court to remand to Johnson
County District Court so that court can rule on the motion for default judgment. Id. In the
alternative, if the Court is unwilling to remand this case, Plaintiff asks that this Court enter default
judgment against Defendants Cortes, Johnson, Avenado, the Board, and the Unified Government.
Id. Plaintiff asserts that he served these Defendants and they failed to file a responsive pleading by
the applicable deadline. Id.
The Court will defer ruling on the motion at this time because it is unsigned. See id. Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must
be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name - - or by a party personally if
the party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). And pro se litigants must “follow the same rules
of procedure that govern other litigants.” See Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007);
McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (federal rules apply to all litigants, including
prisoners lacking access to counsel). Under Rule 11, “[t]he court must strike an unsigned paper
unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the . . . party’s attention.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11(a).
Case 5:26-cv-03354-JWL Document 10 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Plaintiff must submit a signed copy of his motion for remand on or before November 4,
2026. If he fails to do so, the motion (Doc. 7) will be stricken from the record. The motion for
default judgment filed in the state district court has not been provided to this Court. Therefore,
Plaintiff also should submit to this Court, on or before November 4, 2026, a copy of the motion
for default judgment he filed in state district court and any evidence he has regarding when that
motion was filed. If Plaintiff cannot provide this Court with a copy of the motion for default
judgment he filed in state district court, he should explain, in writing, why he is unable to do so. If
Plaintiff timely files in this Court a signed copy of the motion to remand currently located at Doc.
7, Defendants will have 14 days in which to file a response to the motion that addresses whether
this case should be remanded.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff is granted until and
including November 4, 2026, to submit (1) a signed copy of his motion for remand or, in the
alternative, for default judgment and (2) either a copy of the motion for default judgment he filed
in the state district court or a written response explaining why he is unable to do so. If Plaintiff
timely files a signed copy of the motion, Defendants will have 14 days from the date the signed
copy of the motion is filed in which to file a response that addresses whether this case should be
remanded to state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated October 14, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:26-cv-03354-JWL Document 10 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 3