Kasel v. Kansas, State of et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This petition seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is dismissed. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 07/11/17. Mailed to pro se party Seth Michael Kasel by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

SETH MICHAEL KASEL,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 17-3077-SAC

STATE OF KANSAS,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
KANSAS,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Petitioner Seth Michael Kasel’s Petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 16, 2017, the Court entered a Memorandum and
Order (Doc. 3) granting Petitioner twenty days from the date of the Order to show cause why this
matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as barred by the
exhaustion requirement and the limitation period. The Order states that “[t]he failure to file a
response may result in the dismissal of this matter without additional prior notice.” (Doc. 3, at
15.) Petitioner has failed to file a response within the allowed time, and the Petition is dismissed.
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. A COA may
issue only if the petitioner made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “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

1

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 finds nothing in the present record that suggests its ruling is debatable or an incorrect
application of the law and therefore declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
IT IS THEREFORE BY THE COURT ORDERED that this Petition seeking relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 11th day of July, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U. S. Senior District Judge

2