denial of his motions in Leo, Mr. Leo filed his second suit in the Kansas federal district court (No. 10-2495-JTM), in which he used the aforementioned 70,000 word opening brief/“Supporting Analysis” as his complaint. In a memorandum and order dated March 22, 2011, 2011 WL 1097759, the district court concluded that Mr. Leo’s second suit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata based on the earlier suit and granted Garmin’s motion to dismiss. In the same order, the court denied Mr. Leo’s motion for the entry of a default judgment against Garmin and granted Garmin’s request for sanctions. In a subsequent memorandum and order dated April 15, 2011, 2011 WL 1457937, the district court awarded Garmin $ Practice and Procedure § 4433, at 78-85 (2d ed.2 , 425 F.3d 836, 840-41 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). We nonetheless have examined each of the
holding that although pro se briefs are liberally construed even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed holding that although pro se litigants are entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings pro se litigants must follow procedural rules holding that although a pro se litigants pleadings are construed liberally a pro se litigant must still follow the same rules that govern other litigants including the requirement of constructing and supporting arguments with legal authority holding that pro se litigants must follow the kentucky rules of civil procedure