Skaggs v. Griffith

Filing 8

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 District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 8/30/17. (ARL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DUSTIN JACOB SKAGGS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
CINDY GRIFFITH,
Respondent.

No. 4:17-cv-1765-RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon its own motion. On June 19, 2017, petitioner Dustin
Jacob Skaggs filed a petition in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging judgments
of conviction entered in 2013. In an order dated July 19, 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, the Court cautioned petitioner 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 August 18, 2017.

To date, he has neither

responded to the Court’s order, nor sought additional time to do so.
After careful consideration, as set forth in this Court’s July 19, 2017 Order, 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 30th day of August, 2017.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2