Wenger v. Severson

• Court: District Court, D. Kansas
• Decided: July 31, 2025
• Docket: 6:24-cv-01190
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JaLynn Wenger ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Brooks Severson ) Case No. 24-1190- DDC-GEB ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Order (ECF No. 27). After review of Plaintiff’s Motion and Defendant’s Response (ECF No. 28) the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 27) for the reasons outlined below. The Court further advises Plaintiff, because the Court has ordered discovery is stayed (ECF No. 7) pending the District Judge’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, any additional motions filed ahead of the resolution of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) will be summarily denied. I. Background1 As far as the Court can discern from Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on October 18, 2024, she alleges Magistrate Judge Brooks Severson violated her civil rights based on her

1 Unless otherwise indicated, the information recited in this section is taken from the Complaint (ECF No. 1). This background information should not be construed as judicial findings or factual determinations. presiding over one of Plaintiff’s cases, Case No. 24-1104, asserting she lacked authority under Article III of the Constitution. Counsel, on Judge Severson’s behalf, has moved to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted (ECF No. 6). The Court ordered discovery in the matter is stayed until after the Motion to Dismiss has been decided by the District Judge (ECF No. 7). Yet, Plaintiff continues to engage in repetitive motion practice while discovery is stayed. Plaintiff has filed multiple, largely frivolous, motions for order and recusal (ECF

Nos. 17 & 19). And, because Plaintiff does not meaningfully engage in motion practice after filing her motions, these first two motions were stricken per the Court’s Orders (ECF Nos. 21 & 24). Now, the instant Motion (ECF No. 27) again renews many of Plaintiff’s previously stricken demands for relief, requesting Magistrate Judge Brooks Severson, her counsel Christopher Allman, presiding District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree, and the

undersigned produce their oaths of office. Defendant filed her Response to the Motion on July 14, 2025 and Plaintiff filed no Reply. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 27) is ripe for determination. II. Discussion As recently held in a similar case brought by a related Plaintiff, federal judges are

under no obligation to demonstrate to litigants they took their oaths of office.2 All federal

2 See Wenger v. Price, No. 25-1048-JWB-BGS, 2025 WL 1939948, at *1 (D. Kan. July 15, 2025) (citing United States v. Conces, 507 F.3d 1028, 1041 (6th Cir. 2007)); American Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Orlowski, No. 08-0763-DME-KMT, 2009 WL 1698504, n.2 (D. Colo. June 15, 2009). judges take a publicly available statutory oath before performing their duties.3 Plaintiff’s Motion requests Magistrate Judge Brooks Severson, Defense Counsel Christopher Allman, presiding District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree, and the undersigned all produce their oaths of

office. This Court declines to grant Plaintiff’s request. First, insofar as the production of oaths is a transparent attempt to conduct discovery to bolster Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant, this request is premature because of the Order staying discovery. Second, where this production seeks identical oaths from Magistrate Judge Brooks Severson, her counsel, as well as the presiding Court, something wholly irrelevant and publicly available,4 the

Court refuses to permit Plaintiff’s request. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED. Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 27) is DENIED. Plaintiff is strongly discouraged from renewing these requests for relief. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED. Any additional Motions filed ahead of the District Judge’s resolution of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6), will be summarily

denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 31st day of July 2025.

s/ Gwynne E. Birzer GWYNNE E. BIRZER United States Magistrate Judge

3 28 U.S.C. § 453. 4 28 U.S.C. § 453. See United States v. Conces, 507 F.3d 1028, 1041, n.13 (6th Cir. 2007).