Pravin G. Sampat v. Kansas Department of Children and Families

Topeka, Kansas, personal lawyer represented the Plaintiff on an employment discrimination theory.

Reported by Kent Morlan

Pravin G. Sampat sued the Department and Stone, as an individual, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as four federal statutes: 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In his petition, Sampat requested monetary, declaratory, equitable, and any other relief deemed appropriate to redress the violation of his civil rights.

Courts are limited by the laws that create us. We can only do what the law allows us to do. In Kansas, there is no constitutional right to an appeal. The right to appeal is defined by statute, and it is not contained in the United States or Kansas Constitutions. State v. Clark, 313 Kan. 556, 561, 486 P.3d 591 (2021). The Kansas Constitution states that the Kansas Supreme Court "shall have . . . such appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law." Kan. Const. art. 3, § 3. Kansas appellate courts generally only have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal if the appeal is taken in the manner prescribed by statutes. In re Parentage of E.A., 319 Kan. 748, 757, 560 P.3d 1149 (2024).

Fundamentally, Kansas appellate courts only obtain jurisdiction over the rulings identified in the notice of appeal. See K.S.A. 60-2103(b); Assoc. Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. Americold Corp., 293 Kan. 633, 637, 270 P.3d 1074 (2011), cert. denied 568 U.S. 928 (2012).

In his notice of appeal, Sampat identified only the district court's order, filed on December 23, 2024. Thus, we have no jurisdiction to consider the subject of the order from April 27, 2022. We add that Sampat's first issue, concerning dismissal of his federal employment discrimination claims, arises from an order that predated the notice of appeal by over two and a half years.

Summary judgment in favor of the Defendant.

Affirmed on appeal.