John Thomas Marten
How Judge Marten rules, drawn from 7 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Marten no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Marten
John Thomas Marten was a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Marten received a commission on January 4, 1996. Judge Marten assumed senior status on May 1, 2017 and retired on May 1, 2021.
How Judge Marten decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Doe v. Unified School District 233, Marten set out the four allegations needed to state a Title IX school-district-liability claim: actual knowledge, deliberate indifference, sufficiently severe harassment, and loss of educational access.
“A plaintiff must allege four factors to state a claim of school district liability under Title IX. He must allege that the district (1) had actual knowledge of and (2) was deliberately indifferent to (3) harassment that was so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it (4) deprived the victim of access to the educational benefits or opportunities provided by the school.”
In Haynes v. State of Kansas, Marten dismissed the later employment-discrimination suit on res judicata grounds because it arose from the same nucleus of facts as the earlier case. He identified the risk of piecemeal litigation and added defense costs from separate suits.
“There is a danger that plaintiff’s separate suits tend to create piecemeal litigation, requiring defendants to expend additional resources in defending against a suit. The court discourages such an approach to litigating in the courts.”
Procedural preferences
In Peel v. St. Louis County Realty, Marten granted the defendants’ dismissal motion as uncontested under Local Rule 7.4 after the plaintiff failed to respond despite several extensions. He also explained why the complaint had not made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction.
“Accordingly, plaintiff had until July 10, 2008, to file a response, yet failed to do so. As such, pursuant to Local Rule 7.4, defendants’ motion is granted as an uncontested motion.”
In Davison v. Adams, Marten dismissed the plaintiff's claims against one defendant for failure to prosecute after the plaintiff did not answer a show-cause order served before the deadline. The order did not reach the defendant's pending motion to dismiss on its merits.
“Exercising its discretion, the court dismisses plaintiff’s claims against Adams for lack of prosecution.”
Cautions
In Conner v. BA Mortgage, Marten denied emergency requests to stop a foreclosure. The plaintiffs did not establish federal jurisdiction or the requirements for injunctive relief, and their unexplained delay after receiving foreclosure notices further undercut urgency. He also identified possible abstention concerns from ongoing state proceedings.
“The Conners make no explanation for delaying seeking relief until their eleventh-hour ex parte motion to stay the foreclosure.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Exercising its discretion, the court dismisses plaintiff’s claims against Adams for lack of prosecution.”
“IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 6th day of August, 2010, that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 9) is denied, and defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.”
“IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 16th day of May 2006, that the court grants defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 10).”
“IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 28th day of July, 2008, that motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 6) is granted, and the alternative motion to transfer is denied as moot.”
“IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 27th day of June, 2012, that the plaintiffs’ Motions for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 4), Emergency Motion for Hearing (Dkt. 5), and Revised Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 8) are hereby denied.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this 31st day of July, 2013, that the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 85) is granted.”
“IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 27th day of August, 2007, that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 24) is denied and that defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 61) is granted with respect to Count I and denied with respect to Count II.”
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Marten was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2021.
| Motions pending more than six months | 1 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
A historical record
Judge Marten no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.