Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Loggins v. Schnurr

United States District Court, Tenth Circuit

August 14, 2013

WILLIAM LOGGINS, Petitioner,
v.
DAN SCHNURR, et al., Respondents.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SAM A. CROW, Senior District Judge.

This petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a state inmate. Petitioner seeks to challenge his criminal convictions in 2000 in Sedgwick County District Court, Wichita, Kansas. Having examined the materials filed and pertinent court records, the court finds that this petition is subject to being dismissed as second and successive. Petitioner is given time to satisfy the filing fee prerequisite and to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for the reasons stated herein.

The statutory fee for filing a habeas corpus petition is $5.00. Petitioner has neither paid the fee nor submitted a properly supported motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The clerk is directed to send forms for filing an IFP motion to petitioner. This matter may not proceed unless petitioner satisfies the fee in one of these two ways.

On August 24, 2000, Mr. Loggins was convicted by a jury of aggravated kidnaping, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary and was sentenced on October 13, 2000, to 713 months in prison.[1] Loggins v. State, 277 P.3d 448, *1 (Kan.App. June 2, 2012) (Table). He directly appealed his conviction to the Kansas Court of Appeals (KCA), which affirmed. The Kansas Supreme Court (KSC) denied review on February 4, 2003.

On January 2, 2004, Mr. Loggins filed his first state post-conviction motion pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507. It was denied, and he appealed to the KCA, which affirmed the denial. The Kansas Supreme Court denied review on March 27, 2007. See Loggins v. State, 145 P.3d 945 (Kan. App. 2006). On October 14, 2010, Mr. Loggins filed another 60-1507 petition that was denied as untimely. He appealed and the denial was affirmed by the KCA on June 1, 2012. Loggins v. State, 277 P.3d 448 (Kan.App. 2012), review denied (Kan. Mar. 26, 2013).

The court takes judicial notice of Loggins v. Cline, 568 F.Supp. 1265 (D.Kan. July 30, 2008) (Case No. 07-3113-JAR), appeal dismissed 317 Fed.Appx. 832 (10th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 558 U.S. 1152 (2010). This federal habeas corpus application filed by Mr. Loggins also challenged his 2000 Kansas convictions. In this prior petition, Mr. Loggins claimed insufficient evidence to support his convictions of aggravated burglary and aggravated kidnaping, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and prosecutorial as well as judicial misconduct. The petition was denied on the merits.

Section 2244 of 28 U.S.C., provides in pertinent part:

(b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.
(2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless-
(A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or
(B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and
(ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.
(3)(A) Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.

Thus, it is clear that under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), a second or successive petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in federal district court only if the applicant first obtains an order from the appropriate federal court of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.