Kate v. Royal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SLINT KATE, )
a/k/a/ Slint K. Tate, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-411-G
)
TERRY ROYAL, Warden, )
)
Respondent. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). Doc. 1.
United States District Judge Charles B. Goodwin referred this matter to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). In
accordance with Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the undersigned has
promptly examined the Petition and recommends the Court dismiss this action without
prejudice.
I. Discussion
Petitioner names as Respondent the former warden of the Oklahoma State
Penitentiary, where Petitioner is currently incarcerated.1 The Oklahoma State Penitentiary
1 The undersigned takes judicial notice of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections
(“ODOC”) online inmate locator at https://okoffender.doc.ok.gov/ (last visited March 6,
2026). That locator shows Petitioner is incarcerated at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.
See Triplet v. Franklin, 365 F. App’x 86, 92 n.8 (10th Cir. 2010) (taking judicial notice of
ODOC’s offender search website).
Case 5:26-cv-00411-G Document 7 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 6

2
is in Pittsburgh County,2 which is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Eastern
District of Oklahoma. See 28 U.S.C. § 116(b). Petitioner challenges the validity of his
conviction and sentence in Rogers County District Court, Case No. CF-1999-270.3 Rogers
County is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Northern District of Oklahoma.
See id. § 116(a).
A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court
of either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently in custody or the judicial
district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See id. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th
Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Under these circumstances, both
the Eastern District of Oklahoma and the Northern District of Oklahoma have jurisdiction
over the Petition, but this Court does not. “Jurisdictional defects that arise when a suit is
filed in the wrong federal district may be cured by transfer under the federal transfer statute,
28 U.S.C. § 1631, which requires a court to transfer such an action if the transfer is in the
interest of justice.” Haugh v. Booker, 210 F.3d 1147, 1150 (10th Cir. 2000) (citation
2 The undersigned takes judicial notice of the location of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.
See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Piggie, 622 F.2d 486, 488 (10th Cir. 1980)
(“Geography has long been peculiarly susceptible to judicial notice for the obvious reason
that geographic locations are facts which are not generally controversial.”).
3 Though the Petition states the county of conviction is Claremore County, the undersigned
takes judicial notice of the docket in Plaintiff’s criminal case No. CF-1999-270 in Rogers
County, Oklahoma, located at
https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=rogers&number=CF-1999-
270 (last visited March 6, 2026). See United States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184, 1192 n.5
(10th Cir. 2007) (noting a court “may exercise [its] discretion to take judicial notice of
publicly-filed records in [this] court and certain other courts concerning matters that bear
directly upon the disposition of the case at hand”).
Case 5:26-cv-00411-G Document 7 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 6

3
modified). “A court is authorized to consider the consequences of a transfer by taking a
peek at the merits to avoid raising false hopes and wasting judicial resources that would
result from transferring a case which is clearly doomed.” Id. (citation modified). A district
court has “discretion in making a decision to transfer an action or instead to dismiss the
action without prejudice.” Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1222-23 (10th Cir. 2006).
Here, the undersigned finds that transfer would not be in the interest of justice. First,
the Petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which
establishes a one-year deadline for an inmate in state custody to file a federal habeas
petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The conviction and sentence that Petitioner attempts to
challenge were entered on January 29, 2001. State v. Tate, CF-1999-270, Order at 1 (Dist.
Ct. Rogers County, Oct. 21, 2022) (stating the “Amended Judgment and Sentence was filed
on the 29th day of January, 2001, the same having become a final judgment”). Petitioner
did not file a direct appeal. Id. Accordingly, his conviction became final ten days
following sentencing, or February 8, 2001. See Clark v. Oklahoma, 468 F.3d 711, 713
(10th Cir. 2006) (explaining that, under Oklahoma law, if a prisoner does not file a direct
appeal, his conviction becomes final ten days after the entry of the conviction). As such,
notwithstanding Petitioner’s assertion that he can overcome the statute of limitations, Pet.
at 4-5, the undersigned finds it likely the Petition will be dismissed as untimely. See 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (setting forth the one-year limitation period); see also Trujillo, 465
F.3d at 1223 n.16 (setting forth the factors to consider when deciding whether to transfer
or dismiss, including whether “the claims are likely to have merit”).
Case 5:26-cv-00411-G Document 7 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 6

4
More importantly, however, it appears the Petition was not filed by Petitioner. “The
right to proceed pro se in a civil action in federal court is guaranteed by 28 U.S.C. § 1654.
Because pro se means to appear for one’s self, however, a person may not appear on another
person’s behalf in the other’s cause.” Adams ex rel. D.J.W. v. Astrue, 659 F.3d 1297, 1299
(10th Cir. 2011) (citation modified); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the United
States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel. . . .”);
Bunn v. Perdue, 966 F.3d 1094, 1098 (10th Cir. 2020) (“A litigant may bring his own
claims to federal court without counsel, but not the claims of others.” (citation modified)).
Because it appears that someone other than Petitioner filed the Petition, the action should
be dismissed.
As an initial matter, Petitioner did not sign his Petition or the verification. Pet. at 5-
6. Instead, there is only a type-written signature, which is not sufficient. “To be clear, a
petitioner must hand write his signature in pen and ink: typing a name is not sufficient.”
Wynn by Wynn v. United States, No. 5:25-CV-00214-GFVT, 2025 WL 1884779, at *1
(E.D. Ky. July 8, 2025) (citing Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and
Commentary (“The word ‘signature’ means a handwritten signature or other hand-placed
mark. Outside of the CM/ECF system, a party or attorney does not satisfy Rule 11’s
signature requirement by having his name appear in type at the end of the document.”));
see also Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 764 (2001) (“Without any rule change so
ordering, however, we are not disposed to extend the meaning of the word ‘signed,’ as that
word appears in Civil Rule 11(a), to permit typed names. As Rule 11(a) is now framed,
we read the requirement of a signature to indicate, as a signature requirement commonly
Case 5:26-cv-00411-G Document 7 Filed 03/06/26 Page 4 of 6

5
does, and as it did in John Hancock’s day, a name handwritten (or a mark handplaced)”).
Presumably, if Petitioner had himself filed the Petition, he would have signed it.
Additionally:
• Petitioner lists his name on the Petition as “Slint Kate,” but his name
is Slint K. Tate. Compare Petition at 1, 5, 6, 7, Doc. 1-1, and Doc. 1-
2, with the ODOC online inmate locator.
• Petitioner lists his ODOC number as “388858” in the Petition, but it
is 388558. Compare Petition at 1, Doc. 1-1, and Doc. 1-2, with the
ODOC online inmate locator.
• Petitioner lists his date of birth as “8-15-1976” in the Petition, but it
is 8-15-1982. Compare Petition at 1, 4, with the ODOC online inmate
locator.
• Petitioner references in the Petition his conviction and sentence in the
“District Court of Claremore County, Oklahoma,” when he was
convicted and sentenced in the District Court of Rogers County,
Oklahoma. Compare Petition at 1, 5 and Doc. 1-1, with the docket in
State v. Tate, CF-1999-270 (Dist. Ct. Rogers County).
Presumably, Petitioner knows his name, ODOC number, date of birth, and county
of conviction and—if he had himself filed the Petition—those items would have been listed
correctly. Finally, the envelope in which the Petition was mailed shows the return address
as McAlester, Oklahoma, but the postage mark indicates it was mailed from North
Carolina. Doc. 1-2. Again, presumably if Petitioner had himself filed the Petition, it would
have been mailed from McAlester, Oklahoma. As such, the undersigned finds the Petition
lacks merit and should not be transferred. See Trujillo, 465 F.3d at 1223 n.16.
II. Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the Court DISMISS
this action without prejudice. Petitioner is advised of his right to object to this Report and
Case 5:26-cv-00411-G Document 7 Filed 03/06/26 Page 5 of 6

6
Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Any objection must be filed with the Clerk of this
Court not later than March 27, 2026. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Failure to object timely to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate
review of the factual and legal issues addressed in this Report and Recommendation. See
Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge in this matter.
ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00411-G Document 7 Filed 03/06/26 Page 6 of 6