Case Name: Nathaniel JOHNS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David R. McKUNE, Warden, Lansing Correctional Facility; State of Kansas; Derek Schmidt, Attorney General of the State of Kansas, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-28
Citations: 561 F. App'x 774
Docket Number: No. 13-3289
Parties: Nathaniel JOHNS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David R. McKUNE, Warden, Lansing Correctional Facility; State of Kansas; Derek Schmidt, Attorney General of the State of Kansas, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before HARTZ, McKAY and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 561
Pages: 774–774

Head Matter:
Nathaniel JOHNS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David R. McKUNE, Warden, Lansing Correctional Facility; State of Kansas; Derek Schmidt, Attorney General of the State of Kansas, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 13-3289.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
May 28, 2014.
Nathaniel Johns, Lansing, KS, pro se.
Kristafer R. Ailslieger, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Kansas, Topeka, KS, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before HARTZ, McKAY and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.
This is a pro se § 2254 proceeding. Appellant Nathaniel Johns is incarcerated at the state correctional facility in Lansing, Kansas. In 1984, Appellant was convicted of felony murder, aggravated robbery, and other related charges in a Kansas state court. The state court sentenced him to "life, plus" in prison. The Kansas state court's judgment in Appellant's case was affirmed by the Kansas Supreme Court in 1985. Appellant filed post-conviction motions in state court in 2003 and 2009, both of which were denied. Appellant had no success appealing those adverse decisions.
In 2012, Appellant filed the § 2254 habe-as application underlying this proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The district court sua sponte challenged the petition as untimely. Appellant filed a response. The district court was not convinced, however, and dismissed the petition as time barred. The district court denied a certificate of appealability. This appeal followed.
Appellant has renewed his request for a COA in this court. Because no reasonable jurist would debate the correctness of the trial court's reasons for dismissing the case, we DENY Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS this appeal.
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.