Crawley v. Roberson

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANNETTE CRAWLEY,
Petitioner,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3274-JWL
MARK ROBERSON, Sheriff,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	At the time of
filing, Petitioner was confined at the Johnson County Adult Detention Center in Olathe, Kansas
(“JCADC”). Petitioner alleges that she has no charges in Johnson County but is being held on a
detainer issued by Clay County, Missouri, and has refused extradition. (Doc. 3, at 1.) Petitioner
further alleges that she was previously detained under the same detainer for the same charges, and
the case was dismissed when she refused extradition and no Governor’s warrant was obtained. Id.
at 2.
Petitioner filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4) but failed to
include the financial information required by D. Kan. Rule 9.1(g)(2)(A). On January 5, 2026, the
Court entered a Notice of Deficiency (Doc. 5), ordering Petitioner to supply the missing financial
information.
The Court’s Notice of Deficiency was mailed to Petitioner at the JCADS—her address of
record. The Notice of Deficiency was returned to the Court with a notation indicating that it was
),/('
86'LVWULFW&RXUW
'LVWULFWRI.DQVDV
&OHUN86'LVWULFW&RXUW
%\BBBBB'HSXW\&OHUN
03/02/2026
SND
Case 5:25-cv-03274-JWL Document 9 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 3

2
unable to be forwarded. Pursuant to the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office, Petitioner was released
from custody on January 7, 2026.
The Court entered an order to show cause dated January 27, 2026 (“OSC”) (Doc. 7),
directing Petitioner to provide her current address and show cause by February 27, 2026, why this
matter should not be dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner has not responded to the OSC, and
the copy of the OSC mailed to her was returned to the Court. (See Doc. 8.)
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “authorizes a district court, upon a
defendant’s motion, to order the dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute or for failure to
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or ‘a court order.’” Young v. United States, 316
F. App’x 764, 771 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). “This rule has been interpreted
as permitting district courts to dismiss actions sua sponte when one of these conditions is met.”
Id. (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–31 (1962); Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199,
1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003)). “In addition, it is well established in this circuit that a district court is
not obligated to follow any particular procedures when dismissing an action without prejudice
under Rule 41(b).” Young, 316 F. App’x at 771–72 (citations omitted).
Petitioner has failed to comply with the OSC by the Court’s deadline. 	Therefore, the
Petition is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that this matter is dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. 4) is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case 5:25-cv-03274-JWL Document 9 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Dated March 2, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-03274-JWL Document 9 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 3