IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

KENNETH ALLEN WEST PETITIONER

v. Case No. 6:24-cv-06098-SOH-BAB

TRAVIS HILL RESPONDENT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is a Petition under

for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody. ECF No. 2. This Petition was filed by Kenneth Allen West (“West”) on July 22, 2024. No response has been filed and no service has been ordered. This Petition has been referred to the undersigned and is now ripe for consideration. I. BACKGROUND West’s claims in the instant Petition relate to him being held in custody in Pike County Arkansas. According to the state court docket in Pike County, West is the defendant in an ongoing state court criminal case. The docket in this case reveals the case was filed on June 10, 2024, and has not yet been set for trial.1 0F According to his Petition West is being held at the Pike County Detention Center in Murfreesboro, Arkansas. ECF No. 2, pp. 1, 17. He describes his ground for relief as follows: GROUND ONE: Search warrant residence and property rented by Charles Christ located at…Glenwood, AR Pike County…property was to be searched for me Kenneth Allen West only. The home was searched after they arrested me and other property that belonged to the homeowner was seizurrd that belonged to Charles Christ. I don’t live at that address. I am being charged with property that belonged to him and that was not on the search and seiure warrant. My address is ….

1 The docket in West’s state court case is accessible through https://caseinfo.arcourts.gov.(accessed 8/2/2024). West’s case number is 55Cr-24-65: State v. Kenneth Allen West (Pike County Circuit).

. When asked to explain why he did not exhaust his state remedies he replies, “I have not got to speak with my lawyer yet to file motions on this matter.”

For relief in the instant Petition, West seeks “suppression of evidence”.

. II. DISCUSSION

West filed this Petition pursuant to

. Section 2254 requires a petitioner be “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court . . .” Here, Petitioner is not yet in custody pursuant to any state court judgment. Further, under the plain language of

(b), this Petition cannot be granted “unless it appears that—(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or (B) (i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.” Under the clear terms of Subsection A, this Petition cannot be considered by this Court

until West has exhausted his state court remedies. Additionally, pursuant to Subsection B, there has been no demonstration or claim that there are no state court processes which could be used by West to obtain relief for the claims he makes here. In fact, West can and must afford himself of the state criminal justice system to raise the claim he describes in the Petition. III. CONCLUSION Because West’s Petition contains unexhausted claims and he is not in custody pursuant to a state judgment of conviction, it is not ripe for consideration by this Court. Accordingly, it is recommended this Petition under

be DENIED without prejudice. The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation

in which to file written objections pursuant to

(b)(1). The failure to file timely 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,

(8th Cir. 1990). DATED this 6th day of August 2024. Barry A. Bryant /s/ HON. BARRY A. BRYANT U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE