United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
The
following Recommended Disposition
(“Recommendation”) has been sent to United States
District Judge Susan Webber Wright. You may file written
objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do
so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the
factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be
received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days
of the entry of this Recommendation. The failure to timely
file objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal
questions of fact.
I.
Introduction
Petitioner,
Michael Wayne Hinkston (“Hinkston”), an Arkansas
Department of Correction inmate, has filed a 28 U.S.C. §
2254 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Doc. 2.
In his Petition, Hinkston raises various habeas claims
challenging his 1998 convictions, in Crawford County Circuit
Court, for capital murder and theft of property. Id. at
1.[1]
Almost
twenty years ago, on August 7, 2000, Hinkston filed his first
§ 2254 habeas action, in the Eastern District of
Arkansas, challenging the same convictions. Hinkston v.
Norris, E.D. Ark. No. 5:00-cv-00296-SWW. On December 20,
2000, United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright
dismissed the case, with prejudice. Id. at docs. 9, 10,
and 11. Hinkston did not appeal the denial of habeas
relief.
On
August 24, 2001, Hinkston filed a second § 2254 habeas
action, in the Western District of Arkansas, which was
dismissed as a successive § 2254 petition filed without
receiving the required authorization from the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals. Hinkston v. Norris, No.
2:01-cv-02212-RTD (W.D. Ark. Oct. 5, 2001).
On
March 11, 2016, Hinkston filed a third § 2254 habeas
action, in the Eastern District of Arkansas, which was also
dismissed as a successive § 2254 petition filed without
receiving authorization from the Eighth Circuit. Hinkston
v. Kelley, No. 5:16-cv-00077-SWW-JTR (E.D. Ark. Mar. 31,
2016).
According
to the Eighth Circuit's records, that Court has three
times denied Hinkston's petitions for authorization to
file a successive § 2254 petition. Hinkston
v. Hobbs, No. 13-2705 (8th Cir. Oct. 17, 2013);
Hinkston v. Hobbs, No. 13-3355 (8th Cir. Mar. 6,
2014); Hinkston v. Kelley, No. 16-1869 (8th Cir.
July 5, 2016).
For the
reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that this
action be dismissed sua sponte because Hinkston has
not obtained permission from the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals to file a successive habeas action. See Rule
4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States
District Courts.
II.
Discussion
Hinkston's
pending § 2254 habeas Petition represents his fourth
attempt to collaterally attack his 1998 Crawford County
convictions and sentences. Only the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals has the authority to grant Hinkston permission to
file what clearly represents a successive § 2254 habeas
action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A)
(“Before a second or successive application permitted
by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant
shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order
authorizing the district court to consider the
application.”). Until Hinkston obtains the required
authorization from the Eighth Circuit, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to proceed. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S.
147, 152-53, 157 (2007).
Given
Hinkston's history of filing successive § 2254
habeas actions, the Court recommends that he now be cautioned
that filing future habeas actions challenging his convictions
in Crawford County Circuit Court, without first obtaining
permission from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to file
those actions, will result in the Court placing restrictions
on his right to initiate such successive actions in the
Eastern District of Arkansas.
III.
Conclusion
IT IS
THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1.
Hinkston's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus, doc. 2, be DISMISSED, without
prejudice, so that Hinkston may seek authorization from the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, ...