Steen (ID 44300) v. Howes

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
BARRY OWEN STEEN,
Petitioner,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3004-JWL
JESSE HOWES,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case began in January 2025 when Petitioner and state prisoner Barry Owen Steen filed
a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) The Court
conducted the required initial screening of the petition and, on February 27, 2025, it issued a
memorandum and order (“M&O”) explaining that it did not appear that Petitioner had exhausted
his claims in state court, that he should be excused from the exhaustion requirement, or that no
avenues for exhaustion remained. (Doc. 8, p. 4-7.) Thus, the Court directed Petitioner to show
cause, in writing, why this matter should not be dismissed without prejudice so that he could return
to state court to exhaust his claims. Id. at 6.
Petitioner timely responded to the M&O. (Doc. 9.) On April 2, 2025, the Court issued a
second M&O explaining that it had carefully considered the response but ultimately maintained
its prior conclusion that Petitioner’s grounds for relief were not exhausted and this matter should
be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 10, p. 3-4.) The second M&O stated:
The Court emphasizes to Petitioner that the dismissal is without prejudice, meaning
that if Petitioner exhausts his claims in state court, this dismissal will not prevent
him from filing another petition for federal habeas relief under § 2254. Petitioner
must, however, comply with other requirements for filing such a petition, including
doing so within the applicable statute of limitations.
Case 5:25-cv-03004-JWL Document 13 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Id. at 4.
This matter comes now before the Court on Petitioner’s “Motion to Reopen Case,” received
by the Court on November 3, 2025. (Doc. 12.) In the motion, Petitioner asserts that he has now
exhausted all state-court remedies, explaining that he was appointed counsel in state court who
told him he has “no state-court remedies.” Id. Therefore, Petitioner asks this Court to reopen this
case. Id.
This case, however, is closed. Judgment in this case was entered on April 2, 2025. (Doc.
12.) Any motion for relief from judgment filed in this matter at this point in time falls under Rule
60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b) states:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier
judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no
longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Nothing in the motion presently before the Court satisfies the Rule 60(b) standards for
relief from a final judgment. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion to reopen (Doc. 13).
If Petitioner wishes to seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, he must file a petition for writ
of habeas corpus and begin a new federal habeas case. Under Local Rule 9.1(a), a petition for writ
Case 5:25-cv-03004-JWL Document 13 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 3

3
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (or 28 U.S.C. § 2241) must be filed on “forms
approved by the court.” See D. Kan. Rule 9.1(a). Accordingly, the Court will direct the clerk to
provide to Petitioner the required form for filing a petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, as well as the form Petitioner must use if he wishes to seek leave to proceed in forma
pauperis in his new case. If he chooses to do so, Petitioner may then submit those forms and start
a new federal habeas action in this Court. The Court will then conduct a Rule 4 review of the
petition filed in the new case and will issue further orders in that case as necessary.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to reopen (Doc. 12) is denied. The clerk
is directed to provide to Petitioner the forms required for initiating a new federal habeas action
under § 2254, including the required form for moving for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This
case shall remain closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	This 4th day of November, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-03004-JWL Document 13 Filed 11/04/25 Page 3 of 3