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)

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-