Cochran (ID 105415) v. Schnurr

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JAMES M. COCHRAN, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 25-3068-JWL

DAN SCHNURR,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner and Kansas prisoner James M. Cochran, who is currently incarcerated at Hutchinson Correctional Facility in Hutchinson, Kansas, began this matter by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) He also submitted a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), but neither the petition nor the motion were on the required court-approved forms. Thus, on April 17, 2025, the Court issued a notice of deficiency (NOD) directing Petitioner to resubmit the petition and the motion on the provided required forms on or before May 19, 2025 “or this action may be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice.” (Doc. 3, p. 1-2.) The May 19, 2025 deadline has now passed and the Court has received nothing further from Petitioner.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows the Court to dismiss an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with these rules or a court order.” Based on Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Court’s NOD, the Court will dismiss this matter without prejudice under Rule 41(b). Accordingly, the pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) will be denied as moot.

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.

“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 under Rule 41(b). The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied as moot. No certificate of appealability will issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: This 22nd day of May, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.

S/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM United States District Judge