Hughes v. Boyd
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied, and that the case be dismissed, without prejudice. It is also recommended that the Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied as moot and that a certificate of appealability be denied. Objections due within 14 days of this recommended disposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 10/16/2017. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
Civil Case No. 3:17-cv-00192 DPM-JTK
MARTY BOYD, Sheriff,
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Court
Judge D. P. Marshall Jr.
Any party may serve and file written objections to this
recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis
for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and
the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must
be received in the office of the United States District Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days
from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the
opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal
questions of fact.
If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different,
or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the United States
District Judge, you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include a
“Statement of Necessity” that sets forth the following:
Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.
Why the evidence to be proffered at the requested hearing before the United
States District Judge was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate
An offer of proof setting forth the details of any testimony or other evidence
(including copies of any documents) desired to be introduced at the requested
hearing before the United States District Judge.
From this submission, the United States District Judge will determine the necessity for an
additional evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District
Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:
Clerk, United States District Court
Eastern District of Arkansas
600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A 149
Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
Before the Court are the Complaint and Amended Complaint filed by Cordell Hughes
on July 28, 2017 and September 5, 2017, respectively, attacking his pretrial detention in the
Craighead County Detention Center.1 (DE ## 1, 5).
Petitioner states that he was arrested in Jonesboro, Arkansas, on May 18, 2017, at
Motel 6 by Jonesboro Police Department on “incidents that I was falsely accused for from
District Judge Marshall reclassified this case as a habeas case on October 11, 2017, and
referred it to the appropriate Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
May 15, 2017[.]” (DE #5, at p. 4). He states he has been incarcerated with no formal charges
brought against him. He later states, however, that upon filing a grievance, he received from
the circuit clerk papers that show charges had been filed and that he and his public defender
supposedly signed. He states his public defender told him that no charges had been filed, and
he claims he has yet to go before a judge, although he has received a copy of his “motion for
discovery and the facts of which my charges are formed[.]” (DE # 5, at p. 5).
For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that the Petition be dismissed
without prejudice. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Cases (requiring dismissal of
a habeas petition on a preliminary review if “it plainly appears from the petition . . . that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]”
Before a state prisoner can seek federal habeas relief, he ordinarily must “exhaus[t]
the remedies available in the courts of the State,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), “thereby
affording those courts the first opportunity to address and correct” alleged violations of a
prisoner’s federal constitutional rights. Walker v. Martin, 131 S.Ct. 1120, 1127 (2011).
State remedies are not exhausted if a petitioner “has the right under the law of the State to
raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c).
The exhaustion requirement applies to § 2241 habeas petitions challenging a pending
state criminal prosecution. Sacco v. Falke, 649 F.2d 634, 635-37 (8th Cir. 1981) (future
prosecution under state indictment); Davis v. Muellar, 643 F.2d 521, 525 (8th Cir. 1981)
(pending state prosecution). Federal courts should decline jurisdiction over pretrial habeas
petitions brought pursuant to § 2241 if the issues may be resolved by the state trial court or
other state procedures are available to the petitioner. Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220,
225 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Wingo v. Ciccone, 507 F.2d 354, 357 (8th Cir. 1974) (“Absent
extraordinary circumstances, federal courts should not interfere with the states’ pending
judicial processes prior to trial and conviction, even though the prisoner claims he is being
held in violation of the Constitution.”).
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the existing state procedures are ineffective to
protect his constitutional rights or that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting federal
intervention with the state’s pending judicial procedures. Thus, this habeas action should be
dismissed, without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
be DENIED, and that the case be DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS ALSO RECOMMENDED that the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis be DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability be DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 16th day of October, 2017.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?