Hamilton (ID 131711) v. Geither

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

PIERRE QUARAN HAMILTON,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 25-3126-JWL

GLORIA GEITHER,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Petitioner and Kansas state prisoner Pierre Quaran Hamilton. It was dismissed on September 9, 2025 and judgment was entered. (Docs. 20 and 21.) It comes now before the Court on Petitioner’s “Request for Indigent Proof,” in which Petitioner asks the Court for “proof of indigence via an Order” so he “may file a ‘Petition for Review’” in the Kansas Supreme Court. (Doc. 22.) The request will be denied. To the extent that Petitioner intends to appeal the dismissal of this matter, he must timely file a notice of appeal and comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The dismissal of this federal habeas matter by this Court is not appealable to the Kansas Supreme Court. If Petitioner wants documentation that this Court permitted him to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter for another reason, he may contact the office of the Clerk of this Court and request a copy of the order that granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 15.) Petitioner will be required to prepay the standard fee charged for copies of documents. The Court further notes that in his filing, Petitioner states that he intends “to send copies of all correspondence” to this Court. Petitioner is directed to refrain from filing in this matter copies of correspondence. As Petitioner is aware, “‘[e]very paper filed with the Clerk of this Court . . . requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources. A part of the Court’s responsibility is to see that these resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of justice.’” Hamilton v. Wyandotte Cnty. Dist. Ct., 2025 WL 1707399, *5 (D. Kan. June 18, 2025) (unpublished)

(quoting In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989)). Utilizing the Court’s limited resources to file Petitioner’s correspondence in this closed case would not promote the interests of justice. This case was dismissed and judgment has been entered. Thus, generally speaking, the only documents appropriate for filing in this case are motions directed to the dismissal, such as those brought under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 or 60, or filings required to pursue an appeal of the dismissal. Information about the procedures for initiating an appeal can be found in Rules 3, 4, and 5 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and additional information is available on the website of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Petitioner’s “Request for Indigent Proof” (Doc. 22) is denied for the reasons set forth in this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: This 12th day of September, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.

S/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM United States District Judge