Reed v. Faulkner County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 9

ORDER approving and adopting 4 Recommendation in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; denying Mr. Reed's motion for writ of habeas corpus; and dismissing without prejudice this case. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 5/21/2018. (cmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
SIMON ERIC REED
v.

PETITIONER
Case No. 4:18-cv-00058-KGB/JTR

FAULKNER COUNTY
SHERIFF’S OFFICE; TIM RYALS,
Sheriff, Faulkner County, Arkansas

RESPONDENT
ORDER

Before the Court is the Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) submitted by
United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray (Dkt. No. 4). Petitioner Simon Eric Reed filed
timely objections to the Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6). After careful consideration of the
Recommendation, Mr. Reed’s objections, and a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes
that the Recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in its entirety as this
Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 4).
The Court writes separately to address certain of Mr. Reed’s objections to the
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6). First, Mr. Reed asserts that he is a pro se litigant and has a
constitutional right to legal materials. However, Mr. Reed does not specify the legal materials he
claims have been denied. Mr. Reed next argues that he did not have counsel during his plea and
arraignment, in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.
Pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.2(a), “[a] judicial officer shall determine
whether the defendant is indigent and, if so, appoint counsel to represent him or her at the first
appearance, unless the defendant knowingly and intelligently waives the appointment of counsel.”
In the Recommendation, Judge Ray noted that “in a pretrial hearing on December 18, 2017, Mr.
Reed requested to represent himself, which the state court judge allowed.” (Dkt. No. 4, at 3).

Based on the record before the Court at this time, Mr. Reed affirmatively requested to represent
himself when given the opportunity to be represented by counsel.
Mr. Reed also asserts that the police officer who pulled him over for a traffic violation did
not have reasonable suspicion to stop him. Mr. Reed has the opportunity to argue that the police
officer lacked reasonable suspicion during his trial in the Faulkner County Circuit Court, on appeal
to the highest state court if necessary, and then again after he has exhausted his administrative
remedies. See Sacco v. Falke, 649 F.2d 634, 635-37 (8th Cir. 1981) (requiring exhaustion of
remedies for a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition). Mr. Reed’s objections do not address the issue of
exhaustion of state remedies. Before a state inmate can move for a writ of habeas corpus in federal
court, the inmate must appeal his case to the highest state court, which must make a determination
on the case. See McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir. 1997). Mr. Reed’s pending
criminal case is before the Faulkner County Circuit Court, and he has filed the current case without
exhausting his state remedies.
It is therefore ordered that Mr. Reed’s motion for writ of habeas corpus is denied. The
Court dismisses without prejudice this case.
It is so ordered, this the 21st day of May, 2018.

________________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge

2