Angeliina Lynn Lawson v. Kansas Department for Children and Families, et al.

D. Kansas

Angeliina Lynn Lawson v. Kansas Department for Children and Families, et al.

District Court, D. Kansas·Decided October 31, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-02171·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ANGELIINA LYNN LAWSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 2:25-cv-02171-JWB-TJJ

) KANSAS DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN ) AND FAMILIES, et al., )

) Defendants. )

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). has “the inherent authority to manage its dockets” and will resolve Plaintiff's pending motions in due course.* 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.

Teresa J. Fames U.S. Magistrate Judge

3 Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 47 (2016).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ANGELIINA LYNN LAWSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 2:25-cv-02171-JWB-TJJ

) KANSAS DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN ) AND FAMILIES, et al., )

) Defendants. )

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). has “the inherent authority to manage its dockets” and will resolve Plaintiff's pending motions in due course.* 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.

Teresa J. Fames U.S. Magistrate Judge

3 Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 47 (2016).

Angeliina Lynn Lawson v. Kansas Department for Children and Families, et al., (D. Kan. 2025).

Pincite

Angeliina Lynn Lawson v. Kansas Department for Children and Families, et al. (Angeliina Lynn Lawson v. Kansas Department for Children and Families, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related