Holt v. Bradley

Filing 20

ORDER adopting the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety; acknowledging that Mr. Holt in his most recent filing informs this Court that all charges against him in Van Buren County, Arkansas have been dismissed and that he does not wish to proceed with this action; dismissing with prejudice Mr. Holt's complaint; and denying all other pending motions as moot. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 8/31/2017. (mef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
GARY WILLIAM HOLT,
v.

PETITIONER
Case No. 4:16-cv-00873 KGB-JJV

SCOTT BRADLEY, Sheriff,
Van Buren County

RESPONDENT

ORDER
The Court has received Proposed Findings and Recommendations from United States
Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 8). Petitioner Gary William Holt filed objections to the
Proposed Findings and Recommendations (Dkt. No. 12). Mr. Holt, along with respondent Scott
Bradley, submitted several other filings for this Court’s consideration (Dkt. Nos. 9 – 11, 13 – 19).
After a review of the Proposed Findings and Recommendations, and the timely objections received
thereto, as well as a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the Proposed Findings and
Recommendations in their entirety (Dkt. No. 8).
The federal court is required to abstain from any pending state action absent any special
circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Because Mr. Holt was in pretrial custody
awaiting trial upon filing the petition and presented no special circumstances, this Court is required
to abstain from enjoining the state proceedings Mr. Holt challenges. Special circumstances include
claims involving double jeopardy or right to a speedy trial. See Satter v. Leapley, 977 F.2d 1259,
1261 (8th Cir. 1992). Mr. Holt did not make such claims here.
Additionally, before seeking federal habeas review, a state prisoner usually must first fairly
present the substance of each claim to each appropriate state court. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S.
27, 29 (2004); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) (stating that, absent certain circumstances, a state

prisoner must exhaust available state court remedies before raising a claim in a federal habeas
corpus proceeding). Mr. Holt did not do so in this case.
For these reasons, the Court adopts the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their
entirety. Further, this Court acknowledges that Mr. Holt in his most recent filing informs this
Court that all charges against him in Van Buren County, Arkansas, have been dismissed and that
he does not wish to proceed with this action (Dkt. No. 19). Accordingly, this Court dismisses with
prejudice Mr. Holt’s complaint. 1 All other pending motions are denied as moot.
So ordered this 31st day of August, 2017.

________________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge

1

Mr. Holt will not be prejudiced by dismissal with prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition. According to Yellowbear v. Wyoming Attorney General, the dismissal of a pretrial
detention habeas petition does not make any later petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 “second or
successive” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Yellowbear v. Wyoming Attorney General,
525 F.3d 921, 925 (10th Cir. 2008). Furthermore, because this Court received a Change of Address
notification indicating that the charges against Mr. Holt in Van Buren County, Arkansas have been
dismissed, his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition is now moot (Dkt. No. 19).
2