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.

Murphy v. Bradly

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

September 20, 2019

LISA R. MURPHY ADC #760343 PETITIONER
v.
TONI BRADLY; et al. RESPONDENTS

          PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INSTRUCTIONS

          JOE J. VOLPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. 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.

         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 District Judge, you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include the following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.
2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.
3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing 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 new hearing.

         From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail 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 72201-3325

         DISPOSITION

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Petitioner Lisa R. Murphy, an inmate at the McPherson Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”), brings this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.[1] (Doc. No. 2.) She claims she has been found guilty of multiple disciplinaries throughout the years of her incarceration and all have been affirmed on appeal, in violation of her due process rights and ADC policy. (Id. at 4-7.) For relief, she asks that each of her disciplinaries be “scrutinized” and possibly reversed; she also requests immediate release, claiming she would have been released three years ago if not for the violations of ADC policy.[2] (Id. at 7, 10.)

         I have conducted a preliminary review of Ms. Murphy's habeas petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Based on that review, I recommend the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed without prejudice.

         II. ANALYSIS

         Before filing a federal habeas petition, a state inmate must first “fairly present” the substance of his or her federal habeas claims to the appropriate state courts. Murphy v. King, 652 F.3d 845, 848-49 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) (“An application for a writ of habeas corpus . . . shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State”)). The fair-presentment requirement exists so that the respective state has the “‘opportunity to pass upon and correct' alleged violations of its prisoners' federal rights.” Murphy, 652 F.3d at 849 (quoting Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995)); see also Picard v. Connor,404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (quoting Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 204 (1950)) (“We have consistently adhered to this federal policy, for ‘it would be unseemly in our dual system of government for a federal district court to upset a state court conviction without an opportunity to the state courts to correct a constitutional violation.'”); Lenza v. Wyrick, 665 F.2d 804, 807-08 (8th Cir. 1981). When a state inmate fails to comply with the fair-presentment requirement, his or her claim will be procedurally defaulted. Murphy, 652 F.3d at 849. If it would be futile for a petitioner to return to the state courts to present his or her claim, ...


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.