IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

JASON DALE WEST PETITIONER

v. Case No. 4:25-cv-04083-SOH-SGS

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Division of Children and Family Services 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. 1. This Petition was filed by Jason Dale West (“West”) on October 9, 2025. 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 his allegation that his “children are currently in the custody of Arkansas Department of Human Services/DCFS and placed in foster homes in Sebastian County in the city of Fort Smith and Greenwood” and are being subject to abuse. ECF No. 1. There is no claim in the Petition that alleges West is in state custody. II. DISCUSSION Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts provides, in part, that a district court shall summarily dismiss a

petition: “If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Here, it plainly appears West is not entitled to relief because he is not “a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” See

(a). Rather, he is alleging to be a parent of children who are allegedly in the custody of the state. ECF No. 1. III. CONCLUSION Because West 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 with 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 16th day of October 2025. /s/ Spencer G. Singleton HON. SPENCER G. SINGLETON U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE