K. Gary Sebelius
Judge Sebelius no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Sebelius decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On approving a settlement that includes a minor's or wrongful-death claim, Sebelius does not rubber-stamp: he notifies all potential parties, conducts a hearing, and independently apportions the net proceeds among the heirs based on the circumstances (here weighting the decedent's dependent minor far above the others). Practical lesson: bring a minor/wrongful-death settlement to Sebelius expecting a substantive fairness hearing and a reasoned apportionment, not a ministerial approval.
“After notifying all potential parties to the settlement, Judge Sebelius conducted a hearing to apportion the settlement proceeds of $40,000 among the heirs-at-law of Mr. Farnsworth. ... Judge Sebelius considered the relevant circumstances and determined that the following awards should be made: K.H.H.-$38,000; E.V.S.-$1,500; and T.C.P.-$500.”
On 1915(e) screening of a pro se complaint, Sebelius liberally construes the pleading and affirmatively tests it against plausible federal theories (e.g. analyzing an ADA claim even where not clearly pleaded), but holds the plaintiff to the burden of alleging sufficient facts for a recognized claim and will not act as the litigant's advocate. Practical lesson: a liberal-construction posture is not a safety net -- the complaint still needs facts stating a cognizable federal claim.
“Judge Sebelius liberally construed plaintiff's Complaint and considered whether it stated a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act ... But he determined that it did not because plaintiff's allegations against a management company, its employees, and healthcare providers about their assessment of her medical needs failed to state a claim for relief under any title of the ADA.”
Procedural preferences
On the parties' 636(c) consent, Sebelius presided over counseled commercial/employment cases through dispositive motions, deciding summary judgment himself and issuing detailed (40+ page) opinions, and he enforced procedural waivers such as a contractual jury-trial waiver. Practical lesson: in a consent case before Sebelius, expect him -- not a district judge -- to decide summary judgment, and expect him to hold parties to bargained-for procedural terms.
“ORDER granting in part and denying in part defendant's 37 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting defendant's 31 Motion to Enforce Jury Waiver. The Clerk's office shall strike Demand for Trial by Jury (Doc. 3). Any subsequent trial will be to the court. ... Signed by Magistrate Judge K. Gary Sebelius on 9/26/2007.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's motion for approval of settlement (Doc. # 30) is hereby denied in part and granted in part. The court shall deny plaintiff's request that the court approve the settlement agreement. The court shall grant the parties' request to approve their respective attorney fees.”
District Judge Richard D. Rogers adopted Sebelius's R&R in a diversity wrongful-death action arising from a fatal motor-vehicle accident. After notifying all potential parties, Sebelius conducted a hearing to approve the $50,000 settlement and apportion the $40,000 net among the decedent's four heirs: $38,000 to the minor K.H.H., $1,500 to E.V.S., and $500 to T.C.P. No objections were filed; Rogers found the apportionment 'just and sensible' and the settlement 'fair and reasonable,' adopted the R&R, and dismissed with prejudice. The settlement-approval and apportionment ruling did not resolve a contested party motion.
District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree's Memorandum & Order (read in full) ADOPTING Sebelius's R&R (his Doc. 7, 2015-11-24) recommending dismissal of a pro se IFP complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Sebelius liberally construed the complaint, considered whether it stated an ADA claim, and found the allegations against a managed-care company, its employees, and healthcare providers failed to state a claim under any ADA title. Plaintiff's 54-page 'Supplement' was construed as an objection but held not sufficiently specific; Crabtree conducted de novo review, agreed, and dismissed. A screening dismissal on no party motion, signed by Judge Crabtree.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 756 days (N = 2).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 69 days (N = 4).
Not exhaustively enumerated. The docket shows Sebelius as the assigned (consent) magistrate across banking (Boyd v. U.S. Bank), employment/civil-rights (Brooks v. Holiday Healthcare, Canfield v. Secretary of State), wage-and-hour/FLSA (Olivera v. Dos Reales, Hobbs v. LCB Management), insurance (Schone v. Automobile Club), product-liability (Wunder v. Elettric 80), and medical-malpractice (Hammond v. EM Specialists) cases from 2003 through 2018 in Topeka, plus one employment-discrimination case (Smith v. Kansas Public Employees Retirement System) where he handled discovery motions as the referral magistrate through March 2019. The nine cases with grounded motions below span counseled dockets from 2006 to 2019.
A historical record
Judge Sebelius no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.