Jenkins (ID 109454) v. Schnurr

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ROBERT TRAVIS JENKINS,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 25-3076-JWL

DAN SCHNURR,

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 Robert Travis Jenkins, who has paid the filing fee. The Court began an initial review of the Petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and concluded that this matter appears untimely filed. (See Doc. 3.) Thus, the Court issued a notice and order to show cause (NOSC) directing Petitioner to show cause, in writing, why this matter should not be dismissed due to Petitioner’s failure to commence it within the one-year limitation period. (Doc. 3.) Petitioner has now filed a single response to the NOSC, in which he seeks equitable tolling of the statute of limitations and he argues that he is entitled to the actual innocence exception to the statute of limitations. (Doc. 21.) Having reviewed the response, the Court finds that resolving the timeliness of this matter requires additional information from the Respondent, so the Court concludes that a limited Pre- Answer Response (PAR) is appropriate. See Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463, 467 (2012); Denson v. Abbott, 554 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (D. Colo. 2008). Accordingly, the Court directs Respondent to file such a response limited to addressing the affirmative defense of timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Because the question of timeliness may be dispositive of this matter, the Court wishes to resolve it now, during the initial screening process, rather than waiting to consider such argument in the context of a full answer from Respondent that also addresses the merits of Petitioner’s claims. If Respondent does not intend to raise the affirmative defense of untimeliness, Respondent shall notify the Court of that decision in the PAR. Upon receipt of the PAR, the Court will issue

further orders as necessary, including allowing Petitioner to file a response to the PAR if appropriate.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Respondent is granted to and including August 29, 2025 in which to file a Pre-Answer Response that complies with this order. After receipt and review of the PAR, the Court will issue further orders as necessary. The clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Office of the Kansas Attorney General.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: This 29th day of July, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas. S/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM United States District Judge