John Wesley Broomes
How Judge Broomes rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Broomes
John Wesley Broomes is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Broomes received a commission on April 16, 2018.
Judge Broomes's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Broomes, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
In a criminal case, file an optional sentencing memorandum in CM/ECF at least five days before sentencing.
“Should a party choose to file a sentencing memorandum, such memorandum must be filed on CM/ECF no later than five (5) days prior to sentencing.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
- Standing Order 26-04: Immigration Habeas Cases ↗
- Standing Order 26-01: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings ↗
- Standing Order 25-04: Access, Service, and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Standing Order 25-03: Suspension of Local Rule 79.4 for Civil Sealed Files ↗
- Standing Order 2021-1: Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
How Judge Broomes decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a Rule 12 motion to dismiss a criminal indictment, the only question is whether the allegations, if true, state the offense — not whether the government has enough evidence. A 'you have no evidence' argument is a merits challenge the court cannot resolve pretrial (United States v. Pope); it belongs at trial / Rule 29. To win a pretrial dismissal you need either a pure question of law or undisputed facts the government does not contest that show it cannot prove the case.
“Insofar as Defendant’s motion claims the government ‘has not produced any evidence’ to prove the allegations in the indictment, that is clearly a merits-based challenge that the court has no authority to determine under Rule 12.”
In Millard v. Olathe Health System, Broomes granted the plaintiff's Rule 41(a)(2) request to dismiss Fusion Medical Staffing without prejudice. Discovery was at an early stage, the plaintiff explained her request after reviewing initial documents, and Fusion identified no legal prejudice beyond its pending pleadings motion.
“The court finds that the factors weigh in favor of granting Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, without prejudice.”
Disagreement with an expert’s supported ammonia-toxicity conclusion could be tested on cross-examination without excluding the opinion under Rule 702.
“these are arguments which can and should be developed on cross examination rather than rising to the level of exclusion under Rule 702.”
Procedural preferences
In Hoyt v. City of Fort Scott, Broomes deemed the defendants' properly stated summary judgment facts admitted because the plaintiff did not specifically dispute them. He denied the pro se plaintiff's own summary judgment motion because it lacked the material-facts statement required by D. Kan. Rule 56.1.
“The following facts are taken from Defendants’ statement of facts because Plaintiff failed to dispute them.”
In Hoyt v. City of Fort Scott, Broomes granted summary judgment to an officer on a First Amendment claim after Hoyt did not address qualified immunity or show a violation of clearly established law.
“Here, Plaintiff makes no attempt to meet his burden to show that McCoy violated a clearly established constitutional right. The court therefore grants summary judgment to McCoy in his personal capacity on Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim.”
In a case with extensive trade-secret filings, Broomes required sealing requests to identify and justify specific passages rather than entire briefs or expert reports.
“any renewed motion must identify the specific portions of each document for which protection is sought and explain why sealing or redacting those portions is justified.”
In one contract dispute, the court declined to develop a dismissal argument the defendant had left undeveloped. Identify the challenged counts and explain the specific pleading defect; a conclusory challenge did not dispose of Counts II, IV, or V.
“The party moving to dismiss bears the burden of showing that the complaint fails to state a claim, and this court does not develop arguments a party has left undeveloped.”
In Sonderling v. Smith, Broomes enforced a Labor Department subpoena despite a later thumb-drive production because the agency reported that the response was incomplete. He ordered production of the remaining requested records.
“A partial production does not satisfy the subpoena, and the DOL remains entitled to an order requiring full compliance.”
In AGI Suretrack v. OPISystems, Broomes allowed targeted redactions supported by a sworn declaration. He rejected the opposing parties’ unsupported claims that the information was already public, but limited sealed versions to cited text material to pending motions.
“Unsupported assertions do not rebut a showing supported by a sworn declaration.”
In Huffman, Broomes denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment as untimely because it came after the dispositive-motion deadline and the pretrial order gave no leave for that filing.
“The pretrial order, however, did not grant Plaintiff leave to file a motion for summary judgment.”
Cautions
In Kennon v. Ashley, Broomes found numerous deposition quotations in a reconsideration motion were missing from the cited pages or attributed to the wrong witnesses. He took the motion under advisement and ordered counsel to show cause why Rule 11 sanctions should not follow.
“This pattern of behavior is egregious. The repetition rules out any likelihood of inadvertence. ... He has succeeded only in being a kamikaze to his credibility.”
In Escalante v. Burmaster, Broomes declined to impose Rule 11 sanctions sought within a dismissal motion because the defendant had not filed a separate sanctions motion or shown that it had served one before filing.
“Defendant did not file a motion for sanctions separate from the motion to dismiss. Further, there is no indication that Defendant served Plaintiff with the motion for sanctions prior to filing this motion. Therefore, the court declines to enter sanctions on the basis that Defendant did not comply with Rule 11.”
In Escalante v. Burmaster, Broomes dismissed another suit against a state judge arising from a custody dispute and proposed filing restrictions after reviewing the plaintiff's repeated related cases. The order gave the plaintiff until January 15, 2024, to object before the restrictions would take effect.
“The filing restrictions set forth herein will go into effect unless Plaintiff files an objection on or before January 15, 2024.”
In Neil v. KMT Waterjet Systems, Broomes rejected the defendants' failure-to-mitigate ground for summary judgment because they had omitted that affirmative defense from the pretrial order and offered no explanation for the omission.
“Accordingly, the defense is waived, and Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on that basis.”
In Khadim, Broomes denied a request to amend after dismissal because the plaintiff did not attach a proposed amended complaint as the local rule required.
“Plaintiff, however, has failed to comply with local rule 15.1 which requires a plaintiff to attach a proposed amended complaint when seeking leave to amend. Therefore, her request is denied on that basis.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss counts (Doc. 24) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss without prejudice (Doc. 51) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Fusion’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 41) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss this action is GRANTED and his motion for sanctions is DENIED. This action is dismissed.”
“Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 41) is DENIED.”
“the court declines to enter sanctions on the basis that Defendant did not comply with Rule 11.”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 34 ) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 37) DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 55), is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT and Plaintiff’s attorney is ORDERED to show cause why he should not be sanctioned pursuant to Rule 11.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and his related motion for leave to file Axon Videos of Ashley and Spencer conventionally (Docs. 55, 56) are DENIED.”
“As the court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint, his motion for extension of time to effect service is DENIED AS MOOT. (Doc. 13.)”
“Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED AS MOOT. (Doc. 4.)”
“is DENIED as to Dr. Hennings opinions related to ammonia toxicosis and GRANTED as to Dr. Henning’s opinions related to mycotoxins and bacillus contamination of Mix 30.”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgement (Doc. 144) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff and Defendants’ motions to seal (Docs. 306, 323, 324, 338, 342, 343, 344) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiff’s motion to file an exhibit conventionally and under seal (Doc. 305) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 86) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;”
“Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Ronald H. Saff, M.D. (Doc. 80) is DENIED IN PART and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART;”
“Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence (Doc. 83) is DENIED IN PART and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART;”
“Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 89) to the pretrial order (Doc. 77) are OVERRULED.”
“Plaintiff is granted a stay until such time as Plaintiff is able to respond to Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss or, alternatively, motion for summary judgment.”
“Plaintiff’s motions for order (Docs. 80, 81, 82, 83, 84) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiff’s original motion for a TRO is DENIED as moot.”
“Plaintiff’s motion to seal (Doc. 34) is GRANTED.”
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 2 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 5 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 3 | 5 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 10 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 4 |
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.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Kansas, not for Judge Broomes: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 967 | 7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 225 | 4.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 645 | 6.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 83 | 18.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 22.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 967 | 7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 912 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 909 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,092 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,063 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,180 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,884 | 20.7 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Broomes with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Broomes, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Broomes's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace