Henderson v. Payne

Filing 12

ORDER denying 10 Mr. Henderson's motion to amend his petition for writ of habeas corpus; approving and adopting, in its entirety 9 Recommendation as this Court's findings in all respects; dismissing, without prejudice, 1 Mr. Henderson's petition for writ of habeas corpus; and declining to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Chief Judge Kristine G. Baker on 08/28/2024. (llg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
MARK CHRISTIAN HENDERSON
ADC #078763
v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 4:23-cv-01005-KGB

DEXTER PAYNE

DEFENDANT
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Findings and Recommendation (“Recommendation”)
submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris (Dkt. No. 9). Plaintiff Mark
Christian Henderson has not filed any objections, and the time to file objections has passed.
However, Mr. Henderson has filed a motion that this Court understands to be a motion to amend
his petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 10). Additionally, Mr. Henderson’s sister has
filed a notice with the Court in coordination with Mr. Henderson (Dkt. No. 11).
While both the motion and notice contain matters related to Mr. Henderson’s health and
ability to access courts without interference,1 neither address the facts and reasoning of the
Recommendation (Dkt. Nos. 10; 11). The Recommendation points out that Mr. Henderson has
filed a previous habeas petition, Henderson v. Payne, No. 4:21-cv-00096-KGB, but has failed to
obtain authorization to file his second or successive petition from the United States Court of

1

To the extent Mr. Henderson may be able to assert a claim against prison officials under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding allegations of interference with his mail based upon his representations
in correspondence to the Court, Mr. Henderson would be required to assert such a claim in a
separate cause of action, not in this habeas corpus proceeding. See Davis v. Norris, 249 F.3d 800,
801 (8th Cir. 2001) (“Prisoners’ First Amendment rights encompass the right to be free from
certain interference with mail correspondence . . . .”); see also Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351
(2d Cir. 2003) (“Interference with legal mail implicates a prison inmate’s rights to access to the
courts and free speech as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.”).

Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Dkt. No. 9, at 2–3). No amendment would fix this deficiency.
Accordingly, the Court denies Mr. Henderson’s motion to amend his petition for writ of habeas
corpus (Dkt. No. 10).
After careful consideration, the Court approves and adopts the Recommendation in its
entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 9). The Court dismisses without prejudice
Mr. Henderson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1). The Court declines to issue a
certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
It is so ordered this the 28th day of August, 2024.

_____________________________
Kristine G. Baker
Chief United States District Judge

2