Shaw v. Hobbs
ORDER ADOPTING 14 Report and Recommendations. Steven Shaw's 2 Petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice; Shaw's 12 Motion to Amend the complaint is denied. A certificate of appealability will not issue because Shaw has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 8/11/2015. (mcz)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:14CV00192 BSM
WENDY KELLEY, Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction
Instead of filing these frivolous habeas petitions, Steven Shaw, you need to go
somewhere and sit down. The record indicates that, in addition to your many parole
violations, you committed and were found guilty of at least thirteen felony offenses during
a six year span. And for all of the mayhem you caused, you were ordered to serve
approximately 21 years in prison but only served four. You have been paroled over and over
and have continuously failed to comply with the conditions of parole.
With this record, you asked this court to believe that your parole officer selectively
prosecuted you and that you are being held in prison in violation of your constitutional rights.
Although you have a right to file this petition, and this court has an obligation to read through
every one of the documents in the record to see if there is any merit to your claim, this case
appears to be quite ridiculous. I am very grateful that United States Magistrate Judge J.
Thomas Ray was assigned this case because I am assured he gave his usual maximum effort.
After reviewing the entire record, I am also very comfortable adopting his proposed findings
and recommended disposition in all respects, because you simply do not have a case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Steven Shaw’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
[Doc. No. 2] is dismissed with prejudice.
Shaw’s motion for leave to amend the complaint [Doc. No. 12] is denied.
A certificate of appealability will not issue because Shaw has not made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of August 2015.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?