John Watson Lungstrum
How Judge Lungstrum rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Lungstrum
John Watson Lungstrum is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Lungstrum received a commission on November 5, 1991. Judge Lungstrum assumed senior status on November 2, 2010.
Judge Lungstrum's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Lungstrum, 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
Trial
Arrange to have exhibits marked at least five days before trial, or get the courtroom deputy’s approval to mark them yourself.
“Exhibits can either be marked by the Courtroom deputy at least five (5) days in advance of trial or, with prior approval from the courtroom deputy, counsel may mark their own exhibits.”
Trial
Exchange exhibit copies five days before trial and bring three copies of the exhibit list on the trial day.
“You will be asked to provide three copies of the exhibit list the day of trial. Counsel should exchanges copies of the exhibits five (5) days prior to trial.”
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 Lungstrum decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Usher v. Merrill Lynch, Lungstrum dismissed a defamation claim as time-barred because later transmissions of the FINRA Form U-5 were not new publications that restarted the limitations period.
“subsequent transmissions of the Form U-5 do not constitute new publications sufficient to restart the running of the statute of limitations.”
In Deloach v. Bisignano, Lungstrum approved a fee equal to 25 percent of past-due benefits after reviewing the contingent-fee agreement, counsel’s hours, and the favorable result on remand. He required counsel to refund the smaller EAJA award to the claimant.
“Plaintiff has met her burden to prove that award of the full 25 percent of past due benefits is reasonable in the circumstances present here.”
In First Interstate Bank, Lungstrum entered default judgment without a damages hearing after a verified petition and affidavits established the amounts with reasonable certainty.
“The Court concludes that no hearing is necessary in this case, as plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence (by its verified petition and affidavits submitted in support of the motion) from which the Court may determine plaintiff’s damages with reasonable certainty.”
Procedural preferences
In Wheat, Lungstrum declined to dismiss the case as a sanction after finding no willfulness or bad faith; he also treated the limited warning of possible dismissal as a factor weighing against that sanction.
“dismissal as a sanction for the conduct of a party's counsel is so ‘harsh’ that it is appropriate only in cases of willfulness, bad faith or some fault of the party to be sanctioned.”
Cautions
In Wheat v. American Community Newspapers, Lungstrum observed that the defendant's merits arguments, first raised in a reply brief, ordinarily would not be considered. He reached them because the plaintiff had an opportunity to respond through a show-cause filing and rejected them on their merits.
“Nonetheless, because the court rejects defendant’s arguments in any event and because plaintiff had an opportunity to respond to defendant’s arguments in connection with his response to the show cause order, the court proceeds to address the merits of defendant’s arguments.”
A prisoner-plaintiff cannot escape the consequences of a § 1915A screening dismissal (a with-prejudice ruling and a § 1915(g) 'strike') by filing a Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal after the complaint has been screened and found meritless.
“Plaintiff cannot use voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a) to avoid dismissal with prejudice and the effect of a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).”
On a multi-claim summary-judgment motion, a defendant who fails to marshal the record on a specific theory of liability does not meet its initial burden as to that theory, and the claim survives regardless of its merits. A summary-judgment brief must address every discrete theory the plaintiff has preserved, not just the main ones.
“Because defendant has made no effort to marshal the evidence concerning those requests for accommodation, defendant has not met its initial burden of showing the absence of a material factual dispute as to any issue with respect to these requests for accommodations.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's defamation claim (doc. 18) is granted and, because that claim was the only claim asserted against defendant Holleran, defendant Holleran is dismissed as a party to this action.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant's motion for entry of judgment dismissing complaint with prejudice (doc. 10) is denied and defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's response for failure to comply with the court's order (doc. 13) is denied.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider and Reopen Case Based on Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice (Doc. 111) is denied. This case remains closed.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider under Local Rule 7.3, Correct Misquotation, Correct Record and Seek Clarification Regarding Pro Se Access to Sealed Records via PACER (Doc. 112) is denied.”
“The motion is denied as the document is currently sealed. ... Plaintiff’s Motion to Reseal Document (Doc. 110) is denied.”
“defendant's motion is granted as to plaintiff's ADA discriminatory discharge and failure-to-accommodate claims”
“is denied as to plaintiff's ADA retaliation claim”
“is granted as to plaintiff's state law public policy claim to the extent that claim is based on plaintiff's requests for heat in the maintenance garage”
“is denied as to plaintiff's state law public policy claim to the extent the claim is based on plaintiff's reports about wiring issues at the apartment complex where he worked”
“respondents' motion to vacate the Court's judgment in favor of petitioner and to dismiss the case as moot (Doc. # 8) is hereby denied.”
“the petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is hereby granted in part. Respondents are ordered either to release petitioner or to ensure that petitioner receives a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) on or before June 15, 2026 ... The Court denies any request for other relief.”
“The petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is hereby granted in part. Respondents are ordered either to release petitioner or to ensure that petitioner receives a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) on or before June 29, 2026, and they are further ordered to provide notice to this Court when such relief has been given. The Court denies petitioner's requests for other relief.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file inmate account statement out of time (Doc. 8) is granted.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court provisionally grants Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is hereby granted in part. Respondents are ordered either to release petitioner or to ensure that petitioner receives a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) on or before July 31, 2026, and they are further ordered to provide notice to this Court when such relief has been given. The Court denies any request for other relief.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is hereby granted in part. Respondents are ordered either to release petitioner or to ensure that petitioner receives a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) on or before August 11, 2026, and they are further ordered to provide notice to this Court when such relief has been given. The Court denies any request for other relief.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is hereby granted. Respondents are ordered either to release petitioner or to ensure that petitioner receives a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) on or before August 11, 2026, and they are further ordered to provide notice to this Court when such relief has been given.”
After lifting a stay and reviewing the existing Section 2254 petition, the court directed the respondents to answer and set a traverse deadline. The order did not decide the petition or any party motion and is retained only as procedural context.
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Lungstrum: 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 Lungstrum with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Lungstrum, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Lungstrum's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace