Newsome v. Hobbs

Filing 7

ORDER directing the Petitioner to file, on or before 8/18/2014, a Reply addressing the arguments for dismissal raised in the Response 6 . Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 07/16/2014. (kcs)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION WARDELL NEWSOME II V. PETITIONER NO. 5:14CV00215 DPM/JTR RAY HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT ORDER Respondent has filed a Response arguing that Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas claim should be dismissed because: (1) his attack on the constitutionality of his state post-conviction proceedings is not cognizable in federal habeas; (2) his attempt to relitigate a claim that was adjudicated on the merits in his first habeas action is an unauthorized “second or successive” habeas claim; and (3) the claim does not have any merit. Doc. #6. A Reply to the Response would be helpful to resolution of this action. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Petitioner is directed to file, on or before August 18, 2014, a Reply addressing the arguments for dismissal raised in the Response. DATED THIS 16th DAY OF July, 2014. ____________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -1-

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?