Thomas (ID 84231) v. Kansas, State of

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

QUINTON C. THOMAS Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 25-3010-JWL STATE OF KANSAS,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter began on January 15, 2025 when the Court received from Kansas prisoner Quinton C. Thomas, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, a document titled “Memorandum Order to Show Cause” and attachments. (Docs. 1 and 1-1.) The pro se document appears to challenge the constitutionality of Petitioner’s state-court convictions, so the Court has liberally construed it as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and filed it as such. (See Doc. 1, p. 1-2.) On January 16, 2025, the Court issued a notice of deficiency (NOD) explaining that Petitioner must use court-approved forms to file a federal habeas petition and must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) The NOD was mailed to Petitioner, along with the necessary forms, and it warned: “If you fail to comply within the prescribed time, . . . this action may be dismissed without further notice for failure to comply with this court order.” Id. The deadline to comply with the NOD was February 18, 2025. Id. at 2.

The deadline has passed and the Court has received nothing further from Petitioner. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)1 allows the Court to dismiss an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to suits brought by prisoners. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Pro se litigants must “follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” See Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007); McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (holding that federal rules prosecute or comply with these rules or a court order.” Fed R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003) (noting that Rule 41(b) “has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure . . . to comply with the . . . court’s orders”). Based on Petitioner’s failure to either pay the filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his failure to resubmit his pleading on the court-approved form, the Court will dismiss this matter without prejudice under Rule 41(b).

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires a district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability (COA) upon entering a final adverse order on a habeas petition.

“When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The failure to satisfy either prong requires the denial of a COA. Id. at 485. The Court concludes that its procedural ruling in this matter is not subject to debate among jurists of reason. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order. No certificate of appealability will issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: This 27th day of February, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.

S/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM United States District Judge apply to all litigants, including prisoners lacking access to counsel).