Reed v. Faulkner County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 4

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending, sua sponte, that 2 Petitioner Simon Eric Reed's Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed without prejudice. Objections due within 14 days of the entry of this Recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 1/26/2018. (kdr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION

SIMON ERIC REED

PETITIONER

VS.

4:18-CV-00058-KGB/JTR

TIM RYALS, Sheriff,
Faulkner County, Arkansas

RESPONDENT

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent
to United States District Judge Kristine G. Baker. You may file written objections
to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1)
specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be
received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this
Recommendation. The failure to timely file objections may result in waiver of the
right to appeal questions of fact.
I. Introduction
On January 22, 2017, Petitioner, Simon Eric Reed (“Reed”) filed a pro se
Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Motion”). Doc. 2. Although Reed fails to state

whether he is pursuing habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or § 2254, the Court
will construe his Motion as seeking habeas relief under § 2241.1
Reed contends in his Motion that he is being held in the Faulkner County
Detention Center (“FCDC”) on “several unconstitutionally sound factors” including:
(1) he was not given an attorney for 30 days; (2) the state court is not following
the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure; (3) he was charged in an Information
and not by grand jury;

and (4)

the traffic stop leading to his arrest was

unconstitutional. Based on these allegations, Reed appears to be a pre-trial detainee
who is being held in the FCDC awaiting charges on unspecified pending state
criminal charges that he is seeking to collaterally attack in this federal habeas action.
For the reasons stated below, the Court recommends that Reed’s Motion for
Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed.
II.

Discussion

In reviewing a federal habeas petition, a court must summarily deny relief “if
it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is
not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts (applicable to § 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b)); 28 U.S.C. §

1

Because Reed seeks relief before trial and judgment in state court, his remedy, if any,
lies under § 2241(c)(3). Neville v. Cavanaugh, 611 F.2d 673, 675 (7th Cir. 1979) (federal court’s
jurisdiction over pretrial habeas petition is under § 2241(c)(3)); compare Crouch v. Norris, 251
F.3d 720, 723 (8th Cir. 2001) (person in custody pursuant to the judgment of state court can obtain
habeas relief only through § 2254, no matter how pleadings are styled; rejecting state prisoner's
contention that his petition should be classified as § 2241 petition).

2

2243. Additionally, a court “may take judicial notice of proceedings in other courts
of record.” Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th Cir.
1980); see also Hood v. United States, 152 F.2d 431 (8th Cir. 1946) (federal district
court may take judicial notice of proceedings from another federal district court).
After accessing documents in Reed’s pending criminal case in Faulkner
County, the Court takes judicial notice that Reed is a pre-trial detainee in the FCDC
and is awaiting trial on criminal charges in State v. Reed, Faulkner County Circuit
Court Case No. 23CR-17-1194 (hereinafter, “pending state criminal case”).2 The
pleadings in his pending state criminal case indicate that: (1) on November 17,
2017, following a traffic stop on November 15, 2017, Reed was charged in a felony
information with possession of a methamphetamine and possession of drug
paraphernalia; (2) in a pretrial hearing on December 18, 2017, Reed requested to
represent himself, which the state court judge allowed; (3) Reed, proceeding pro
se, has requested a suppression hearing to challenge the alleged unlawful traffic stop
and to suppress the evidence seized during the stop; (4) Reed, proceeding pro se,
has also filed a motion to dismiss the felony charges against him, claiming that his
continued incarceration is a violation of his constitutional rights; and (5) a pre-trial
hearing is scheduled on April 3, 2018.

2

The Court has accessed the docket using the Arkansas courts’ website, which is available
to the public. See https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov.

3

Under well-established federal case law, Reed’s pro se Motion for Writ of
Habeas Corpus raises claims that are not cognizable and must be dismissed. First,
habeas review focuses on whether the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States have been violated. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Federal
habeas courts are not permitted “to reexamine state-court determinations on statelaw questions.” Id. Thus, Reed’s allegations of state authorities failing to comply
with state laws are not cognizable in a federal habeas action under either § 2241 or
§ 2254.
Second, 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). In order to fully exhaust his state court remedies, a prisoner must
fairly present his constitutional claims to the highest available state court before
seeking relief in federal court. See McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir.
1997). This exhaustion requirement applies not only to habeas petitions challenging
state-court convictions following a trial or guilty plea, but also to habeas petitions
challenging a pending or future state criminal prosecution. Sacco v. Falke, 649 F.2d
634, 635-37 (8th Cir. 1981); Davis v. Muellar, 643 F.2d 521, 525 (8th Cir. 1981);
Williams v. O'Brien, 792 F.2d 986, 987 (10th Cir.1986) (requiring exhaustion
concerning a § 2241 petition). Because Reed has not yet proceeded to trial on the
pending state criminal charges, he clearly has not exhausted his state court remedies.
4

Thus, he is seeking to collaterally attack in federal court state criminal charges that
are pending in Faulkner County Circuit Court, and, to date, remain completely
unresolved.
Third, federal courts generally must abstain from the exercise of § 2241
jurisdiction if the issues raised in a habeas petition may be resolved either by trial on
the merits in the state court proceeding or by other available state court procedures.
“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.” Sacco v. Falke,
649 F.2d at 636 (quoting Wingo v. Ciccone, 507 F.2d 354, 357 (8th Cir. 1974)).
While narrow exceptions to this rule exist, nothing about Reed’s allegations raise
any of the “special circumstances” that might trigger one of those exceptions.
Accordingly, Reed’s Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be dismissed,
without prejudice.
III.

Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED, SUA SPONTE, THAT Petitioner
Simon Eric Reed’s Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. No. 2, be dismissed,
without prejudice.

5

Dated this 26th day of January 2018.

____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6