Norman v. Morriss

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shirley Padmore Mensah on 8/11/17. (CAR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BRALAND NORMAN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
KELLY MORRISS,
Respondent.

No. 4:17-cv-1585-SPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon its own motion. On May 30, 2017, petitioner
Braland Norman filed a petition in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging an
October 15, 2003 judgment of conviction for felony stealing that was entered in the 22nd Judicial
Circuit Court in St. Louis, Missouri. He neither paid the filing fee nor sought leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and in an order dated June 13, 2017, he was ordered to do one or the other.
Petitioner timely complied. In an order dated July 5, 2017, this Court noted that the petition
appeared to have been untimely filed, and ordered petitioner to show cause why it should not be
dismissed as such. In that order, petitioner was cautioned that his failure to timely comply would
result in the dismissal of his case without prejudice and without further notice. Petitioner’s
response to the Court was due on July 26, 2017. To date he has neither responded to the Court’s
order nor sought additional time to do so.
After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the petition is time-barred. The
Court will therefore summarily dismiss it pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts, which requires this Court to summarily dismiss a §
2254 petition if it plainly appears the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Day v. McDonough,

126 S. Ct. 1675, 1684 (2006) (a district court can dismiss an untimely § 2254 petition on its own
motion after giving notice to the petitioner).
The Court has considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. To do so, the
Court must find a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right.

See

Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 522 (8th Cir.1997). A substantial showing is a showing that
issues are debatable among reasonable jurists, a Court could resolve the issues differently, or the
issues deserve further proceedings. Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997) (citing
Flieger v. Delo, 16 F.3d 878, 882–83 (8th Cir. 1994)). Because petitioner has made no such
showing, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A
separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
Dated this 11th day of August, 2017.

SHIRLEY PADMORE MENSAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2