Turner v. Kansas, State of
DISREGARD FILING AS TEXT IS INCORRECT -- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Nothing in Plaintiff's response (Doc. 4 ) suggests that Plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Nothing in the response warrants reconsideration of this Court's order dismissing this case. This case remains closed. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 11/21/22. Mailed to pro se party Vernon P. Turner by regular mail. (smnd) Modified text on 11/21/2022. (smnd)
Case 5:22-cv-03257-JWL-JPO Document 4 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
VERNON P. TURNER,
CASE NO. 22-3257-JWL-JPO
STATE OF KANSAS,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On October 13, 2022, Petitioner Vernon P. Turner, a state pretrial detainee, filed a pro se
petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and a motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). Neither the petition nor the motion was on the required court-approved
forms. Thus, the same day, the Court mailed Petitioner the forms and a notice explaining that
Petitioner must re-submit his petition and motion on the court-approved forms “within thirty (30)
days of this Notice.” (Doc. 3.) The notice further explained to Petitioner: “If you fail to comply
within the prescribed time, the Judge presiding over your case will be notified of your noncompliance, and this action may be dismissed without further notice for failure to comply with this
court order.” Id.
The deadline for Petitioner to respond to the Court’s order has now passed with no response
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.” Fed R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Based on Petitioner’s failure to resubmit his petition and motion to proceed in forma pauperis on
court-approved forms as directed in the notice, the Court will dismiss this matter without prejudice
under Rule 41(b). The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) will be denied as moot.
Case 5:22-cv-03257-JWL-JPO Document 4 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 2
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
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
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 21st day of November, 2022, at Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?