Teresa J. James
How Judge James rules, drawn from 7 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge James no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge James
Teresa J. James joined the District of Kansas as a United States Magistrate Judge in January 2014. She retired from regular service on March 17, 2026, and returned the next day as a recalled magistrate judge.
How Judge James decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Walker v. Shawnee Mission Medical Center, James recommended dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff and defendants were all Kansas citizens, and the complaint did not establish a federal question from the alleged medical malpractice and neglect.
“Because Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of the same state (Kansas), diversity of citizenship therefore cannot be the basis of subject-matter jurisdiction for this action.”
In Protheroe v. Masarik, James recommended denying the plaintiff's request to proceed without prepaying fees and dismissing her complaint about child custody. She found that the pleading did not establish federal jurisdiction or state a claim for relief.
“The complaint reveals no facts which would support the District of Kansas having jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant. By failing to adequately plead, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendant upon which relief can be granted.”
Procedural preferences
In a June 2026 admissions dispute, James rejected vagueness objections where the responding party had not shown why ordinary terms were unclear. She ordered answers to some requests while sustaining objections to others.
“The Court easily finds Defendants have not met their burden and their vagueness objections are without merit.”
Cautions
In an August 2026 subpoena dispute, James declined to order another search by a nonparty law firm where the requesting parties offered speculation about missing documents and the likely burden outweighed the expected gain. She separately required private review of two redacted emails and then ordered their production.
“Plaintiffs offer mere speculation that the low number of documents produced by Goodwin is a result solely due to deficiencies with respect to the search terms used.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
Her signed R&R recommended sua sponte dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The pro se plaintiff, whose motion to proceed in forma pauperis had already been granted, sued a Kansas hospital and nurse for medical malpractice, attempted murder, and neglect. James found no diversity because the plaintiff and both defendants were Kansas citizens, and no federal question because the complaint cited no constitutional or statutory right and the claims sounded in state-law negligence.
“On April 12, 2018, Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James entered a Report and Recommendation that this Court deny Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) ... The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation filed April 12, 2018 (Doc. 4). Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is denied.”
District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree's Memorandum & Order (read in full) ACCEPTING, ADOPTING, and AFFIRMING James's R&R (her Doc. 5, 2024-05-23) recommending dismissal of a pro se complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. No objection was filed. A screening dismissal on no party motion. The order was signed by Judge Crabtree; it is recorded as James's recommendation adopted.
District Judge Crabtree's Memorandum & Order (read in full) ACCEPTING, ADOPTING, and AFFIRMING James's R&R (her Doc. 8) that reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) and recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim (plaintiff alleged insufficient facts to support a cognizable claim against the named defendants). No objection filed. A screening dismissal on no party motion. The order was signed by Judge Crabtree; it is recorded as James's recommendation adopted.
District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil's Memorandum & Order (read in full) ADOPTING James's R&R (her Doc. 26, 2025-11-24) recommending dismissal of a pro se civil-rights complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim, and on quasi-judicial-immunity grounds as to the defendant guardian ad litem. No objection was filed. A screening dismissal on no party motion. The order was signed by Judge Vratil; it is recorded as James's recommendation adopted.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to De-Designate Crime-Fraud Documents (ECF No. 306) is denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Seal Exhibits to Plaintiffs' Reply (ECF No. 315) is granted in part. Plaintiffs' provisionally sealed Exhibits 1 to 31 to Plaintiffs' Reply ... shall remain permanently under seal.”
“The Court therefore denies Plaintiff's motion without prejudice to the refiling of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings, if warranted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Request Recruitment of Counsel (ECF No. 11) is denied without prejudice.”
James's own order, signed one day before her retirement became effective, clarified that a pro se plaintiff cannot prosecute claims on behalf of non-signing co-plaintiffs and struck an unsigned filing submitted by one of them. The order did not resolve a genuine motion by the actual party and documents that she continued signing orders through her last day of active service.
“Plaintiffs’ Motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part.”
After reviewing two emails without redactions, James ordered their production. This completed the redaction issue within the motion decided on August 25 and is excluded from the motion count to avoid counting the same motion twice.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 457 days (N = 1).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 1 days (N = 13).
- James appears as the assigned magistrate judge on roughly 21 District of Kansas dockets, predominantly consent (636(c)) civil cases (employment/FLSA, insurance, contract, product liability) plus some criminal/petty-offense matters.
- Seven terminated consent cases with rich electronic entry text were mined for the motions she signed herself; on these she handled the full pretrial track and, on consent, dispositive motions (e.g., the Gillette summary-judgment ruling and the Tanksley Rule 12 dismissals).
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 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| 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.
A historical record
Judge James 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.