Terry v. District Court of Benton County West Gentry District Court

W.D. Arkansas

Terry v. District Court of Benton County West Gentry District Court

DecidedSeptember 5, 2024

Docket5:23-cv-05157

StatusUnknown

This text of Terry v. District Court of Benton County West Gentry District Court (Terry v. District Court of Benton County West Gentry District Court) 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

Terry v. District Court of Benton County West Gentry District Court, (W.D. Ark. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

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

JONATHAN TERRY PETITIONER

v. Civil No. 5:23-cv-05157

DISTRICT COURT OF BENTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, WEST GENTRY DIVISION RESPONDENT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Jonathan Terry (“Terry”), a person in federal custody at Coleman FCC.1 (ECF No.1). The 0F Respondent has appeared and withdrawn the state court warrant (WR-20-285) (ECF Nos. 14, 17) about which Terry complained in his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and for that reason, the undersigned recommends that Terry’s Petition (ECF No. 1) be dismissed as MOOT.2 1F The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are

1 United States v. Jonathan Joseph Terry, 5:20CR50021-001, Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division. 2 Had the warrant not been withdrawn, it would have been recommended that the District Court abstain pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), where “the Supreme Court held that, consistent with our nation’s commitment to the principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction in cases where there is a parallel, pending state criminal proceeding, so long as certain conditions are met.” Minnesota Living Assistance, Inc. v. Peterson, 899 F.3d 548, 551 (8th Cir. 2018). The Court should abstain from hearing a case when “(1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding which (2) implicates important state interests, and when (3) that proceeding affords an adequate opportunity to raise the federal questions presented.” Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Fuller v. Ulland, 76 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir. 1996)).

1 reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. RECOMMENDED this 5“ day of September 2024.

Cheval, Comatoce __ mateck CHRISTYCOMSTOCK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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 FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

JONATHAN TERRY PETITIONER

v. Civil No. 5:23-cv-05157

DISTRICT COURT OF BENTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, WEST GENTRY DIVISION RESPONDENT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Jonathan Terry (“Terry”), a person in federal custody at Coleman FCC.1 (ECF No.1). The 0F Respondent has appeared and withdrawn the state court warrant (WR-20-285) (ECF Nos. 14, 17) about which Terry complained in his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and for that reason, the undersigned recommends that Terry’s Petition (ECF No. 1) be dismissed as MOOT.2 1F The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are

1 United States v. Jonathan Joseph Terry, 5:20CR50021-001, Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division. 2 Had the warrant not been withdrawn, it would have been recommended that the District Court abstain pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), where “the Supreme Court held that, consistent with our nation’s commitment to the principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction in cases where there is a parallel, pending state criminal proceeding, so long as certain conditions are met.” Minnesota Living Assistance, Inc. v. Peterson, 899 F.3d 548, 551 (8th Cir. 2018). The Court should abstain from hearing a case when “(1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding which (2) implicates important state interests, and when (3) that proceeding affords an adequate opportunity to raise the federal questions presented.” Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Fuller v. Ulland, 76 F.3d 957, 959 (8th Cir. 1996)).

1 reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. RECOMMENDED this 5“ day of September 2024.

Cheval, Comatoce __ mateck CHRISTYCOMSTOCK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Terry v. District Court of Benton County West Gentry District Court, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terry-v-district-court-of-benton-county-west-gentry-district-court-arwd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack