United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, El Dorado Division
MICHAEL L. DOUGLAS, Petitioner,
RAY HOBBS, Director Arkansas Department of Corrections, Respondent.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.
Michael Larenzo Douglas ("Douglas"), an inmate
confined in the Arkansas Department of Correction, Ouachita
River Unit, Malvern, Arkansas, filed a "Petition to Void
Judgement" which the Court has determined is a Petition
for Writ of a Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Â§
2254. ECF No. 1. The Petition was referred for findings of
fact, conclusions of law and recommendations for the
disposition of the case. The Respondent, Director, filed his
Response on November 25, 2014. ECF No. 7. For the reasons set
forth below the Petition should be dismissed.
brings this action challenging his conviction in Drew County
Circuit Court for escape, kidnaping and theft in 1985. ECF
No. 1. On May 22, 1985, Douglas pled guilty to escape,
kidnaping and theft of property in Drew County, Arkansas. ECF
No. 7. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment
of ten years for escape, twenty years for kidnaping, and 20
years for theft. He did not appeal these sentences. He also
did not seek state post-conviction relief.
1993, Douglas filed a petition under Â§ 2254 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
See Douglas v. Endell, Cause No. PB-C-93-212 (ED
Ark. 1993). In this petition, he attacked the 1985 conviction
and sentence from Drew County. ECF No. 7. He claimed his
guilty plea was unlawful and involuntary, the state failed to
disclose exculpatory evidence prior to his conviction, and
that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The
United States District Court in the Eastern District of
Arkansas, dismissed this petition because of Petitioner's
failure to raise these claims in the state courts prior to
seeking federal relief. ECF No. 7.
1994, Douglas filed a state petition for habeas corpus
relief. He again claimed the trial court lacked jurisdiction
because it failed to hold a hearing to determine whether his
case should be transferred to juvenile court. The trial court
denied the petition. On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court
again ruled there was no error and dismissed the appeal.
See Douglas v. State, 94-1174, 1995 WL 30578 (Ark.
Jan. 23, 1995).
next sought relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Â§ 2254, in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas. See Douglas v. Hobbs, No. 1:13-CV-1086
(W.D. AR 2013). He filed that petition on November 5, 2013.
In this federal petition he alleged: (1) the trial court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction as he was a juvenile, and
(2) ineffective assistance of counsel.
District Court denied his petition holding the petition was
time barred. Douglas appealled this decision and on July 1,
2015, the United States Court of Appeals for The Eight
Circuit denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed
the appeal. See Douglas v. Kelley, No. 15-1414 (8th
filed the instant Petition, pursuant to Â§ 2254, on October 2,
2014. ECF No. 1. In this Petition he alleges his 1985
conviction is void because the state court did not have
subject-matter jurisdiction over him and his counsel was
ineffective. The Respondent asserts the instant Petition
should be dismissed as a successive petition, filed without
permission of the Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2244(b)(3). ECF No. 7. Respondent also asserts the claim is
clearly filed an earlier petition seeking habeas
corpus relief. He has not shown he requested and
received permission from the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit to file the instant second petition as
required by Â§ 2244 (b)(3). Title 28 United States Code
Section 2244 states in pertinent part:
(b)(1) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas
corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a
prior application shall be dismissed.
(2) A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus
application under section 2254 that was not presented in a