Sayres v. Grudek

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, denying 6 Motion to Amend/Correct and denying as moot 8 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on August 10, 2015. (tg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION

ROBERT GREGORY SAYRES
V.

PETITIONER
CASE NO. 3:14-CV-03128

ROBERT T. GRUDEK, Sheriff,
Carroll County, Arkansas

RESPONDENT
ORDER

Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Doc. 7)
of the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Arkansas, filed in this case on April 15, 2015. The R & R concerns Robert Gregory
Sayres's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), filed pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 2241 ;
his Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 5); and his Motion to Add the new
Sheriff of Carroll County, Arkansas, Randy Mayfield, as a defendant in this action (Doc. 6) .
Sayres filed Objections (Doc. 11) to the R & Ron June 9, 2015. These Objections
fail to state law or facts that justify deviation from the Magistrate's well-reasoned
recommendations. In fact, Sayres admits in his Objections that he is aware "there is a
'statue [sic] of limit tations [sic]' from this long legal case," and that "never wanted to
wast[e] this Courts [sic] time" by filing this and other "past cases." (Doc. 11, p. 1).
The Court agrees that Sayres's decision to file duplicative, frivolous lawsuits over
the past several years, based on the same 20-year-old set of facts, has resulted in a
tremendous waste of Court time and resources. As pointed out by the Magistrate in the
R & R, Sayres's complaints concerning an alleged conspiracy against him by law

enforcement and court officials in Boone and Carroll Counties have resulted in eight civil
lawsuits filed by Sayres in this Court, all of which have been dismissed.
Having reviewed the case at bar de nova, the Court agrees with the Magistrate that
Sayres's § 2241 Petition must be denied. Section 2241 is not the proper vehicle for Sayres
to seek habeas relief, as this statute is reserved for federal prisoners, and Sayres is (or
was) a state prisoner. Furthermore, although the allegations in Sayres's Petition could
possibly be construed as requests for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Magistrate
correctly pointed out that Sayres has already brought multiple § 1983 actions based on the
·
claims asserted in the instant case, and all such claims have been dismissed-repeatedly.
Sayres also brought a § 2254 habeas petition in this Court, complaining of his state court
sentence, but that petition was denied on September 24, 2014 in Case No. 3:14-CV03011.

Any successive petition for habeas corpus proceeding from Sayres's state

sentence would, therefore, be subject to review and potential dismissal under§ 2244(b).
In light of the above reasoning, the Court finds that the R & R (Doc. 7) should be,
and hereby is, APPROVED and ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Sayres's Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 5), and Motion
to Add (Doc. 6) are all DENIED. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All other
pending motions are DENIED AS MO~ Judgment will enter accordingly.
T.
IT IS SO ORDERED

this ~ day of Augus ,

015.

OOKS
S DISTRICT JUDGE

2