Hamilton v. Davis

E.D. Arkansas

Hamilton v. Davis

DecidedSeptember 25, 2023

Docket4:23-cv-00799

StatusUnknown

This text of Hamilton v. Davis (Hamilton v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hamilton v. Davis, (E.D. Ark. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

KEVIN LYNN HAMILTON, JR PLAINTIFF #83985

V. No. 4:23-cv-799-DPM

RON DAVIS, Counsel; ELISABETH KANOPSIC, Prosecuting Attorney, Arkansas; ERIC HIGGINS, Sheriff/Jail Administrator, PCRDF DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. Order denying Hamilton’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 3, vacated. Notice of calculation sheet and certificate of prisoner account, Doc. 4, appreciated. Hamilton’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 1 & 4, granted. The Court assesses an initial partial filing fee of $2.17. Hamilton’s custodian must collect monthly payments from his prison trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. These payments will be equal to twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to the account; and they will be collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court until the $350.00 filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The payments forwarded on Hamilton’s behalf must be clearly identified by case name and case number.

2. The Court must screen Hamilton’s § 1983 complaint. Doc. 2; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). He is awaiting trial for murder in Pulaski County, Arkansas. State v. Hamilton, 60CR-21-1634. He says he is being held in violation of speedy trial principles and seeks release and damages. The Court must abstain from proceeding with Hamilton’s federal case because the criminal case is ongoing, Arkansas has an important interest in enforcing its criminal laws, and Hamilton may raise his constitutional claims during his state criminal proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971); Mounkes v. Conklin, 922 F. Supp. 1501, 1510-13 (D. Kansas 1996). Further, Hamilton hasn’t alleged bad faith, harassment, or any other extraordinary circumstances that would make abstention inappropriate. Tony Alamo Christian Ministries v. Selig, 664 F.3d 1245, 1254 (8th Cir. 2012). His claims must therefore be put on hold until there’s a final disposition of his pending state charges. Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. v. Stroud, 179 F.3d 598, 603-04 (8th Cir. 1999).

The Court directs the Clerk to stay and administratively terminate this case. Hamilton can move to reopen this case after final disposition of his state cases, including any appeal. Any motion to reopen must be filed within sixty days of that final disposition. If Hamilton doesn’t file a timely motion to reopen or a status report by 18 September 2024, then the Court will reopen the case and dismiss it without prejudice. obs

So Ordered. An Fe D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge as Sep fore ls 2623

Bes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

KEVIN LYNN HAMILTON, JR PLAINTIFF #83985

V. No. 4:23-cv-799-DPM

RON DAVIS, Counsel; ELISABETH KANOPSIC, Prosecuting Attorney, Arkansas; ERIC HIGGINS, Sheriff/Jail Administrator, PCRDF DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. Order denying Hamilton’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 3, vacated. Notice of calculation sheet and certificate of prisoner account, Doc. 4, appreciated. Hamilton’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 1 & 4, granted. The Court assesses an initial partial filing fee of $2.17. Hamilton’s custodian must collect monthly payments from his prison trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. These payments will be equal to twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to the account; and they will be collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court until the $350.00 filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The payments forwarded on Hamilton’s behalf must be clearly identified by case name and case number.

2. The Court must screen Hamilton’s § 1983 complaint. Doc. 2; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). He is awaiting trial for murder in Pulaski County, Arkansas. State v. Hamilton, 60CR-21-1634. He says he is being held in violation of speedy trial principles and seeks release and damages. The Court must abstain from proceeding with Hamilton’s federal case because the criminal case is ongoing, Arkansas has an important interest in enforcing its criminal laws, and Hamilton may raise his constitutional claims during his state criminal proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971); Mounkes v. Conklin, 922 F. Supp. 1501, 1510-13 (D. Kansas 1996). Further, Hamilton hasn’t alleged bad faith, harassment, or any other extraordinary circumstances that would make abstention inappropriate. Tony Alamo Christian Ministries v. Selig, 664 F.3d 1245, 1254 (8th Cir. 2012). His claims must therefore be put on hold until there’s a final disposition of his pending state charges. Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. v. Stroud, 179 F.3d 598, 603-04 (8th Cir. 1999).

The Court directs the Clerk to stay and administratively terminate this case. Hamilton can move to reopen this case after final disposition of his state cases, including any appeal. Any motion to reopen must be filed within sixty days of that final disposition. If Hamilton doesn’t file a timely motion to reopen or a status report by 18 September 2024, then the Court will reopen the case and dismiss it without prejudice. obs

So Ordered. An Fe D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge as Sep fore ls 2623

Bes

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hamilton v. Davis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-davis-ared-2023.

Opinion

V. No. 4:23-cv-799-DPM

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack