Munn v. Hempstead County
Munn v. Hempstead County
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION
WILLIE MUNN PETITIONER
v. Civil No. 4:22-cv-04120
HEMPSTEAD COUNTY RESPONDENT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is a Petition under
28 U.S.C. § 2254for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody. ECF No. 1. This Petition was filed on December 13, 2022 by Willie Munn (“Munn”). This Court finds no response is necessary. This Petition was referred for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case. The Court has reviewed the Petition and finds this Petition should be DENIED.1 Based upon Munn’s Complaint, his direct appeal is still pending before the Arkansas Supreme Court. ECF No. 1. Pursuant to the language of
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), a habeas petition cannot be granted where a petitioner has not “exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State.” Here, according to the facts alleged in the Petition, Munn’s direct appeal is pending, and he has not exhausted his state court remedies. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel,
526 U.S. 838, 842(8th Cir. 1999) (recognizing “the state prisoner must give the state courts an opportunity to act on his claims before he presents those claims to a federal court in a habeas petition”). Thus, this Petition is not ripe for consideration and must be DENIED. The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
1 Munn was directed to file his IFP application by January 25, 2023, and his mail was returned undeliverable: “Mail Returned as Undeliverable marked Return to sender. Unclaimed. Unable to forward. Mail originally sent to Willie Munn at Hempstead County Detention Center including 2 Order Directing Pleading to be Filed. No new address available.” objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. See Thompson v. Nix,
897 F.2d 356, 357(8th Cir. 1990). DATED this 25th day of January 2023. Barry A. Bryant /s/ HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Reference
- Status
- Unknown