John Wesley Broomes
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.”
On a Rule 41(a)(2) motion to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice, Broomes applies the Tenth Circuit Brown/Ohlander 'practical factors' and will normally grant absent legal prejudice. The mere fact that the defendant has a substantive motion pending, or that a second suit might be filed, is not legal prejudice — a defendant opposing must engage the factors, not just point to its own motion.
“Defendant merely argues that it has filed a substantive motion which should be granted. Defendant makes no argument regarding the factors.”
Procedural preferences
Enforces D. Kan. Rule 56.1 strictly: a summary-judgment brief must open with a numbered statement of material facts, and any of the movant's facts not specifically controverted are deemed admitted. A party (including a pro se litigant) who fails to comply, or who does not respond to a fact statement, forfeits the factual dispute. Always file the Rule 56.1 fact statement and controvert the other side's facts paragraph-by-paragraph.
“All material facts set forth in the statement of the movant will be deemed admitted for the purpose of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the statement of the opposing party.”
Treats unaddressed arguments as conceded on summary judgment. When a defendant asserts qualified immunity there is a presumption of immunity, and a plaintiff who does not even mention the doctrine or attempt the clearly-established-right showing loses that claim. The same happened on municipal liability — plaintiff's brief 'does not address' it. Respond to every dispositive argument the movant raises.
“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.”
Cautions
Do NOT fabricate or misattribute record citations. In a reconsideration motion Broomes personally checked the deposition cites and found roughly eight quotes that did not exist or were misattributed; rather than rule, he took the motion under advisement and issued a sua sponte Rule 11 show-cause to counsel. He checks the record against the brief and treats a pattern of phantom quotes as inexcusable, not inadvertent.
“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.”
On a Rule 11 motion for sanctions, strict compliance with Rule 11(c)(2) is required: the motion must be made SEPARATELY from any other motion and served on the opponent with the 21-day safe-harbor period before filing. Broomes denied a sanctions request bundled inside a motion to dismiss with no showing of safe-harbor service. (He will, however, raise Rule 11 sua sponte under 11(c)(3) when warranted.)
“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.”
Repeatedly refiling claims already dismissed will draw filing restrictions. After plaintiff filed five-plus near-identical suits against the same state judge over the same custody dispute, Broomes imposed a leave-to-file regime under the Tenth Circuit Andrews/Kettler factors. Abusive, duplicative litigation is met with carefully tailored access restrictions, not just another dismissal.
“Given Plaintiff's repeated abuse of the court process, the court intends to restrict Plaintiff’s future filings as follows: If Mr. Escalante seeks to file a new lawsuit in the District of Kansas and is proceeding pro se, he shall file a petition with the Clerk of Court requesting leave to file ...”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Judgment on the pleadings N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for voluntary dismissal N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to amend N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for sanctions N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
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.”