Cobble v. Clarksville, City of et al
ORDER ADOPTING 7 Report and Recommendations as set forth. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on February 5, 2015. (rw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
DANIEL ERIC COBBLE
Case No. 2:14-CV-02175
CITY OF CLARKSVILLE; and JOHN DOE
The Court has received proposed findings and recommendations (Doc. 7) from Chief United
States Magistrate Judge James R. Marschewski.1 The Court has conducted a careful review of the
findings and recommendations and of the objections (Doc. 8) filed by Petitioner Daniel Eric Cobble.
The Magistrate found, based on Mr. Cobble’s petition, that Mr. Cobble was not contesting
his current custody in the State of Georgia. Mr. Cobble clarifies in his objections that he is, in fact,
challenging his custody in Georgia, stating the “whole point of this Arkansas habeas is challenging
my illegal custody in Georgia due to Arkansas is one [sic] who is supposed to have custody of me.”
(Doc. 8, p.2). Regardless of the fact that Mr. Cobble claims that Arkansas should have custody of
him, it is now clear that he is challenging his current custody in Georgia. Therefore, the Court adopts
the Magistrate’s alternative finding that this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 action is not properly filed in this
Court. United States v. Chappel, 208 F.3d 1069, 1070 (8th Cir. 2000) (jurisdiction for action under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 lies in the district where a petitioner is confined or in any district in which the BOP
maintains a regional office).
Furthermore, in the event this action may be construed as a habeas petition under 18 U.S.C.
§ 2254, Mr. Cobble has previously sought habeas relief in the Northern District of Georgia
Judge Marschewski is now retired and on recall status, but was Chief Magistrate at the time
the report was entered.
unsuccessfully. Cobble v. Donald, No. 1:06-CV-2487 (N.D. Ga. May 14, 2009); Cobble v. Owens,
No. 1:13-CV-04096 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 28, 2014). Mr. Cobble has not obtained the necessary
authorization from the appropriate court of appeals for consideration of a successive petition or
shown that any exception to the rule barring successive petitions applies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244.
To the extent Mr. Cobble seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or any other federal
statute, Mr. Cobble has already raised those claims in a separate action, and such claims are barred
by the “three strikes rule,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as Mr. Cobble has at least three previous actions that
qualify as strikes against him, and he has not alleged that he is currently under imminent danger of
serious physical injury. See Cobble v. City of Clarksville, No. 2:14-CV-02183 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 3,
2014) (citing 4 previously dismissed actions counting as strikes).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the report and recommendation (Doc. 11) is ADOPTED
with the following exceptions: the Court finds that Mr. Cobble has clarified he is challenging his
confinement in Georgia; the Court finds Mr. Cobble’s claims should be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Cobble’s petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction as to any claims asserted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 or
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any claims that might be construed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 or any other federal statute are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to the three
strikes rule set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of February, 2015.
s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. 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?