United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
KAREN E. HALL PETITIONER
UNITED STATES PROBATION OFFICE RESPONDENT
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
following recommended disposition has been sent to United
States District Court Judge Billy Roy Wilson. Any party may
serve and file written objections to this recommendation.
Objections should be specific and should include the factual
or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a
factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the
evidence that supports your objection. An original and one
copy of your objections must be received in the office of the
United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen
(14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations.
The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to
file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to
appeal questions of fact.
are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit
new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing
for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at the
same time that you file your written objections, include the
1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is
2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the
District Judge (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered
at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.
3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at
the hearing before the District Judge in the form of an offer
of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or
other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at
the hearing before the District Judge.
this submission, the District Judge will determine the
necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing, either
before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.
your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:
Clerk, United States District Court Eastern District of
Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 Little Rock, AR
reasons explained below, it is recommended Petitioner's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (DE # 1) be DISMISSED
August 21, 2017, the Petitioner plead guilty to failure to
appear on a felony in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County,
Arkansas. State of Arkansas v. Karen Hall,
60CR-16-785. Petitioner was sentenced to four (4) years'
imprisonment with a suspended imposition of sentence for five
(5) years. Id. On August 14, 2017, prior to being
sentenced in Pulaski County Circuit Court, the Petitioner
filed her petition for habeas corpus in this Court under 28
U.S.C. § 2254, alleging “incompetent
counsel” and stating that she is “disabled and
cannot work a job and that the court can't force [the]
disabled to pay restitution without modifying the conditions
to the petitioner.” (DE # 1, pg. 6)
matter of comity, the state courts should have the first
opportunity to review federal constitutional issues and to
correct federal constitutional errors made by the state's
trial courts. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S.
838, 844-45 (1999). A federal habeas petitioner is thus
required to exhaust all available avenues of relief in the
state courts before the federal courts will consider a claim.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) & (c). State remedies are not
fully exhausted if a petitioner “has the right under
the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure,
the question presented.” Id. at §
2254(c). This requires state prisoners to “give the
state courts one full opportunity to resolve any
constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the
State's established appellate review process.”