Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Coppock v. Ryals

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division

July 30, 2018

JASON B. COPPOCK PETITIONER
v.
TIM RYALS, Sheriff, Faulkner County Detention Center RESPONDENT

          PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION INSTRUCTIONS

         The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Court Judge James M. Moody, Jr. 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 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.

         If you 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 United States District Judge, you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include a “Statement of Necessity” that sets forth the following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.
2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the requested hearing before the United States District Judge was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.
3. An offer of proof setting forth the details of any testimony or other evidence (including copies of any documents) desired to be introduced at the requested hearing before the United States District Judge.

         From this submission, the United States District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.

         Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:

Clerk, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A 149 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

         Introduction

         Before the Court is the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Jason Coppock on June 15, 2018.[1] Petitioner states he has a pending criminal case in Faulkner County (Conway), Arkansas, and that he is being denied the right to a fast a speedy trial in violation of the due process. He states a Motion for Speedy Trial was filed in October 2017, with ruling by the state court. He also argues that he is being denied the constitutional right to life and liberty due to an excessive $250, 000 bail. Third, he claims he has been denied effective assistance of counsel throughout all pretrial proceedings. He seeks this Court to issue an Order to Show Cause upon Respondent to account for the long court delays and excessive bail.[2]

         For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Cases (requiring dismissal of a habeas petition on a preliminary review if “it plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]”

         Discussion

         Before a state prisoner can seek federal habeas relief, he ordinarily must “exhaus[t] the remedies available in the courts of the State, ” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), “thereby affording those courts the first opportunity to address and correct” alleged violations of a prisoner's federal constitutional rights. Walker v. Martin, 131 S.Ct. 1120, 1127 (2011). State remedies are not exhausted if a petitioner “has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c).

         The exhaustion requirement applies to § 2241 habeas petitions challenging a pending state criminal prosecution. Sacco v. Falke,649 F.2d 634, 635-37 (8th Cir. 1981) (future prosecution under state indictment); Davis v. Muellar,643 F.2d 521, 525 (8th Cir. 1981) (pending state prosecution). Federal courts should decline jurisdiction over pretrial habeas petitions brought pursuant to § 2241 if the issues may be resolved by the state trial court or other state procedures are available to the petitioner. Dickerson v. Louisiana,816 F.2d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Wingo v. Ciccone, 507 F.2d 354, 357 (8th Cir. 1974) (ÔÇťAbsent extraordinary circumstances, federal courts should ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.