When Courtroom Patience Runs Thin—But the Legal Standard Holds Firm

In my practice as a defense lawyer, I sometimes represent doctors who’ve been sued by inmates representing themselves. One of those cases was filed by Michael Scriven, who brought a §1983 lawsuit against a doctor I represent, other medical providers, and Sedgwick County.

We were able to get the case dismissed as to our client, but the case continued against others. It dragged on for years and eventually settled.

This week, I saw that Mr. Scriven filed yet another lawsuit. In response, the defense team—apparently at their limit filed a motion to label him a vexatious litigant, asking the court to impose pre-filing restrictions.

The case is:
Scriven v. VitalCore Health Strategies LLC,
Case No. 22-cv-3282-EFM-RES (D. Kan. May 20, 2025)
Chief Judge Eric F. Melgren

The judge denied the motion, emphasizing that although Scriven had filed meritless motions and was difficult to deal with, his conduct did not meet the “manifestly abusive” standard required to impose such restrictions. The ruling confirms just how narrow and rarely granted vexatious litigant designations are in federal court.

Key takeaway: Even a long history of difficult pro se litigation isn’t enough on its own—courts require a clear, documented pattern of abuse, not just accumulated aggravation.