Christopher Jarmall Bailey v. Dan Schnurr

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

CHRISTOPHER JARMALL BAILEY, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 25-3221-JWL DAN SCHNURR, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Petitioner and Kansas state prisoner Christopher Jarmall Bailey. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner has paid the filing fee for this matter. The Court conducted a review of the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and concluded that it failed to state a claim for relief that is available in a federal habeas matter. (Doc. 4.) Accordingly, on October 15, 2025, the Court directed Petitioner to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed without prejudice. Id. at 4. Petitioner timely filed a response, which persuaded the Court to allow him time in which to file an amended petition that states a plausible claim for habeas relief. (See Doc. 6, p. 3.)

The Court granted Petitioner until and including December 2, 2025 in which to submit his amended petition. Id. at 5. Petitioner was cautioned that “[i]f he fails to timely file an amended petition, this matter may be dismissed without prejudice and without further prior notice to Petitioner.” Id. The deadline to file the amended petition has passed and Petitioner has not done so. Thus, the Court will dismiss this matter without prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief that is available in a federal habeas action, as set forth in the Court’s previous orders. (See Docs.

4 and 6.)

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 for failure to state a claim on which habeas relief can be granted. No certificate of appealability will issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: This 10th day of December, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.

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