Thomas v. Armbrister

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #4 ) is denied. This matter is dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with court orders and, in the alternative, under the abstention doctrines set forth in the Court's previous memorandum and order to show cause. No certificate of appealability will issue. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 03/27/24. Mailed to pro se party Malachi Samuel Thomas by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MALACHI SAMUEL THOMAS,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 24-3018-JWL

JAY ARMBRISTER,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Petitioner and
state pretrial detainee Malachi Samuel Thomas. (Doc. 1.) When Petitioner filed his petition in this
Court, he did not pay the statutorily required $5.00 filing fee, nor did he submit a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis and the required supporting documentation. The Court therefore issued a notice
of deficiency (NOD) granting Petitioner until March 6, 2024 to either pay the filing fee or submit
the motion. (Doc. 2.) The NOD advised Petitioner that if he “fail[s] to comply within the prescribed
time, . . . this action may be dismissed without further notice for failure to comply with this court
order.” Id. at 1.
On February 16, 2024, the Court received from Petitioner a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (Doc. 4), but Petitioner did not submit with the motion the required financial
information. Thus, the Court issued a second NOD, granting Petitioner until March 18, 2024 to
file the financial information or “this action may be dismissed without prejudice and without
further notice.” Id. at 1-2. The deadline set forth in the second NOD has passed and Petitioner has
not submitted the required financial information. Thus, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis
will be denied.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court may dismiss an action “if the
1

plaintiff fails to prosecute or to 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”). Due to Petitioner’s failure to comply with the first and second
NOD, the Court concludes that this matter should be dismissed under Rule 41(b).
In addition, on February 12, 2024, the Court issued a memorandum and order to show
cause (MOSC) advising Petitioner that it had conducted the required screening of the petition and
concluded that this matter is subject to dismissal in its entirety under the well-established doctrines
that generally require federal courts to abstain from exercising their habeas corpus power to
discharge a person in pretrial state custody on a state crime. (Doc. 3, p. 2-4.) The MOSC directed
Petitioner to show good cause, in writing, on or before March 13, 2024, why this matter should
not be summarily dismissed without prejudice based on the abstention doctrines. Id. at 4-5. The
MOSC cautioned Petitioner that “[t]he failure to file a timely response will result in this matter
being dismissed without further prior notice to Petitioner.” Id. at 5. The deadline set forth in the
MOSC has passed and Petitioner has not responded. Thus, the Court also concludes that this matter
should be dismissed under the abstention doctrines discussed in the MOSC.
Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the Court to issue or deny a
certificate of appealability (COA) upon entering a final adverse order. The Tenth Circuit has held
that this requirement also applies to petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Montez v. McKinna,
208 F.3d 862, 869 (10th Cir. 2000) (holding that the COA requirement applies “whenever a state
prisoner habeas petition relates to matters flowing from a state court detention 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
2

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 rulings in this matter are not subject
to debate among jurists of reason. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of
appealability.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (Doc. 4) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is dismissed without prejudice under Rule
41(b) for failure to comply with court orders and, in the alternative, under the abstention doctrines
set forth in the Court’s previous memorandum and order to show cause. No certificate of
appealability will issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated March 27, 2024, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3