Reed (ID 2000041548) v. Easley

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
NOAH DEMETRIUS REED,
Petitioner,
v. 	CASE NO. 26-3047-JWL
TIM EASLEY,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by
Petitioner and Kansas state prisoner Noah Demetrius Reed, who proceeds pro se. (Doc. 1.) On
March 12, 2026, the Court issued a memorandum and order to show cause (“MOSC”). (Doc. 6.)
First, the MOSC provisionally granted Petitioner’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and gave Petitioner until and including May 12, 2026 to file either the financial certificate required
to support his motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or a status report with any additional
information he received about the availability of that certificate. Id. at 1-2, 9.
Second, the MOSC addressed whether the petition that began this case was timely filed.
Id. at 2-7. Highly summarized, the MOSC set out the Court’s analysis leading to the determination
that if the K.S.A. 60-1507 motion Petitioner filed in state court in June 2025 was timely filed, it
tolled, or paused, the deadline for filing this federal habeas case and this case is timely. If the June
2025 K.S.A. 60-1507 motion was untimely, however, it did not toll the federal habeas deadline,
which passed before Petitioner filed the petition in this case. Id. Because the timeliness of the June
2025 K.S.A. 60-1507 motion could be addressed by the state courts in the case that motion began,
the Court concluded that it should stay this matter and hold it in abeyance until the state court
Case 5:26-cv-03047-JWL Document 8 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 4

2
proceedings are complete. Id. at 7. The MOSC granted Petitioner time to respond, however, and
state any good cause he knows for this case not to be stayed and held in abeyance. Id.
Third, the MOSC denied without prejudice Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel,
stating that Petitioner may refile the motion if and when this case passes the initial review phase
of these proceedings. Id. at 8-9. Petitioner timely filed a response to the MOSC. (Doc. 7.) The
Court has carefully reviewed the response and will address each point in turn.
Petitioner first provides the Court with an update on his efforts to obtain the financial
certificate required by the Court, explaining that he remains unable to provide the certificate and
that he has not received any updated information. (Doc. 7, p. 1.) Petitioner appears to be concerned
that the failure to provide the certificate affects the timeliness of the petition in this case. See id. at
2. To be clear: it does not. The Court appreciates Petitioner’s continuing efforts to obtain the
certificate and assures Petitioner that the inability to provide the certificate at this time has not
prejudiced his claims.
The response to the MOSC also asks the Court to reconsider the denial of Petitioner’s
motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 7, p. 1.) Petitioner explains that he seeks the appointment
of counsel because he is having trouble articulating his thoughts and arguments to the Court. Id.
The Court understands that Petitioner is not trained in the law and is unable to afford to retain
counsel. Because Petitioner proceeds pro se, or without counsel, the Court liberally construes his
filings. See Hall v. Bellman, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Petitioner has ably articulated
his arguments thus far in these proceedings, and the Court denies the request for reconsideration
and appointment of counsel.
The response to the MOSC also briefly addresses this Court’s conclusion that this matter
should be stayed and held in abeyance, but it does not show good cause why the case should not
Case 5:26-cv-03047-JWL Document 8 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 4

3
be stayed. (Doc. 7, p. 1-2.) Petitioner points out that equitable tolling of the federal habeas statute
of limitations is available under certain circumstances. And if the state courts hold that the
currently pending K.S.A. 60-1507 motion was not timely, Petitioner will be given the opportunity
to argue to this Court that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the deadline for filing his federal
habeas petition. At this point, however, it is not clear that such argument is necessary. As explained
in the MOSC, this Court cannot determine whether the federal habeas petition was filed before the
statutory deadline until the state courts resolve the K.S.A. 60-1507 motion. Accordingly, this
federal habeas case will be stayed and held in abeyance until the conclusion of Sedgwick County
District Court case number SG-2025-CV-001482 and any subsequent appeal.
Practically speaking, what this means is that this Court will pause this case and require
Petitioner to periodically submit written status reports to this Court. When the state court
proceedings—including any appeal if necessary—are final, the stay of this federal habeas case will
be lifted and this case will resume. If the state district court enters a final order in Sedgwick County
District Court case number SG-2025-CV-001482, Petitioner should file a status report in this Court
as soon as possible and inform the Court. If the deadline set by this Court for the status report is
approaching and the district court has not entered a final order, Petitioner should file a status report
advising this Court of any events that have occurred in the state case. If nothing further has
happened in the state case, the status report may simply state that nothing has happened.
In addition, if Petitioner becomes able to obtain and submit the financial certificate, he
should do so as soon as possible. If Petitioner remains unable to submit the financial certificate,
he should include in his status reports to this Court any updated information about the availability
of the certificate. Again, the Court understands that Petitioner is currently unable to obtain the
certificate through no fault of his own. But if Petitioner becomes able to do so, he must submit the
Case 5:26-cv-03047-JWL Document 8 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 4

4
certificate to the Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT this matter is stayed and held in abeyance
pending the completion of related state court proceedings. Petitioner is granted to and including
July 15, 2026 to file a status report as described in this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	This 15th day of April, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-03047-JWL Document 8 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 4