Jimmy Cantrell v. Larry Norris

Eighth Circuit

Jimmy Cantrell v. Larry Norris

319 F. App'x 442

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 10, 2008

Docket07-1847

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 319 F. App'x 442 (Jimmy Cantrell v. Larry Norris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jimmy Cantrell v. Larry Norris, 319 F. App'x 442 (8th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this interlocutory appeal, Arkansas state prisoner Jimmy Cantrell challenges the district court’s 1 denial of his motion for partial summary judgment and his request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action.

We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of a TRO, see Hamm v. Groose, 15 F.3d 110, 112-13 (8th Cir.1994), or to review the denial of summary judgment, see Krein v. Norris, 250 F.3d 1184, 1187 (8th Cir.2001). With respect to the denial of a preliminary injunction, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err by finding that it had no authority to order state court clerks to adhere to the federal prison-mailbox rule. See Safety-Kleen Sys., Inc. v. Hennkens, 301 F.3d 931, 935 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review); Winkels v. George A. Hormel & Co., 874 F.2d 567, 568 (8th Cir.1989) (general rule is that state *443 procedural rules govern cases originating in state court). As to Cantrell’s desire for an evidentiary hearing (with appointed counsel) on his habeas claims, we note that the district court will determine whether such a hearing is warranted. See Rule 8(a) & (c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of a preliminary injunction. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this interlocutory appeal, Arkansas state prisoner Jimmy Cantrell challenges the district court’s 1 denial of his motion for partial summary judgment and his request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action.

We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of a TRO, see Hamm v. Groose, 15 F.3d 110, 112-13 (8th Cir.1994), or to review the denial of summary judgment, see Krein v. Norris, 250 F.3d 1184, 1187 (8th Cir.2001). With respect to the denial of a preliminary injunction, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err by finding that it had no authority to order state court clerks to adhere to the federal prison-mailbox rule. See Safety-Kleen Sys., Inc. v. Hennkens, 301 F.3d 931, 935 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review); Winkels v. George A. Hormel & Co., 874 F.2d 567, 568 (8th Cir.1989) (general rule is that state *443 procedural rules govern cases originating in state court). As to Cantrell’s desire for an evidentiary hearing (with appointed counsel) on his habeas claims, we note that the district court will determine whether such a hearing is warranted. See Rule 8(a) & (c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of a preliminary injunction. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

319 F. App'x 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimmy-cantrell-v-larry-norris-ca8-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack