Lewis v. State of Arkansas

W.D. Arkansas

Lewis v. State of Arkansas

DecidedMarch 25, 2025

Docket4:24-cv-04022

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Lewis v. State of Arkansas, (W.D. Ark. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

TRAVIS CAIN LEWIS PETITIONER

v. Case No. 4:24-cr-4022

DEXTER PAYNE, Director of the Arkansas Division of Correction RESPONDENT

ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 10. Judge Bryant recommends that the Court deny and dismiss without prejudice Travis Cain Lewis’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ECF No. 1. Respondent has filed an objection, arguing that the dismissal should be with prejudice because Lewis’s claims are procedurally defaulted. Lewis has not filed objections, but he did file a motion to dismiss his case (ECF No. 12), in which he acknowledges that he has not exhausted all available state court remedies. ECF No. 12. Upon review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) in part. The Court finds that Lewis’s claims should be dismissed but agrees with Respondent that the claims should be dismissed with prejudice, because they are procedurally defaulted. See Welch v. Lund, 616 F.3d 756, 760 (8th Cir. 2010) (failure to properly exhaust state court remedies results in procedural default if state procedural rules preclude any further attempts at exhaustion). Accordingly, Lewis’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. When entering a final order adverse to a habeas corpus petitioner, the Court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability. See Rule 11, Rules Governing § 2255 Cases. A certificate of appealability may issue only if a petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). To make such a showing, “[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In this case, the Court finds no issue on which Lewis has made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 25th day of March, 2025.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge

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

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

TRAVIS CAIN LEWIS PETITIONER

v. Case No. 4:24-cr-4022

DEXTER PAYNE, Director of the Arkansas Division of Correction RESPONDENT

ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 10. Judge Bryant recommends that the Court deny and dismiss without prejudice Travis Cain Lewis’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ECF No. 1. Respondent has filed an objection, arguing that the dismissal should be with prejudice because Lewis’s claims are procedurally defaulted. Lewis has not filed objections, but he did file a motion to dismiss his case (ECF No. 12), in which he acknowledges that he has not exhausted all available state court remedies. ECF No. 12. Upon review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) in part. The Court finds that Lewis’s claims should be dismissed but agrees with Respondent that the claims should be dismissed with prejudice, because they are procedurally defaulted. See Welch v. Lund, 616 F.3d 756, 760 (8th Cir. 2010) (failure to properly exhaust state court remedies results in procedural default if state procedural rules preclude any further attempts at exhaustion). Accordingly, Lewis’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. When entering a final order adverse to a habeas corpus petitioner, the Court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability. See Rule 11, Rules Governing § 2255 Cases. A certificate of appealability may issue only if a petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). To make such a showing, “[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In this case, the Court finds no issue on which Lewis has made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 25th day of March, 2025.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lewis v. State of Arkansas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-state-of-arkansas-arwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack