Tigue v. Arkansas, State of

E.D. Arkansas

Tigue v. Arkansas, State of

DecidedFebruary 3, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00006

StatusUnknown

This text of Tigue v. Arkansas, State of (Tigue v. Arkansas, State of) 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

Tigue v. Arkansas, State of, (E.D. Ark. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION RICKIE L. TIGUE, JR. PLAINTIFF ADC #171131

v. No. 2:25-cv-6-DPM

STATE OF ARKANSAS DEFENDANT

ORDER The Court has reviewed Tigue’s § 1983 complaint. It reads like a § 2254 habeas petition. He is challenging the legality of his criminal conviction and is seeking release from custody. That relief isn’t available to him under § 1983. By the Order, the Court is giving Tigue the opportunity to clarify the nature of this action. E.g., Spencer v. Haynes, 774 F.3d 467, 471 (8th Cir. 2014). He must file a notice stating whether he intended to file a habeas petition. If he did, the Court will direct the Clerk to convert the case. Fair warning, though. If this case is converted to a habeas petition, and if the Court ultimately denies relief on the merits, any later § 2254 petition will be subject to the statute’s restrictions on successive petitions. Shaw v. Delo, 971 F.2d 181, 184 (8th Cir. 1992). Tigue must file his notice no later than 7 March 2025. If he fails to do so, the Court will dismiss his case pursuant to Local Rule 5.5.

Tigue’s embedded motion to appoint counsel is premature and denied without prejudice. Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). So Ordered. MPrv4arstoll D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 3 Lelprvany Aas

2.

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 DELTA DIVISION RICKIE L. TIGUE, JR. PLAINTIFF ADC #171131

v. No. 2:25-cv-6-DPM

STATE OF ARKANSAS DEFENDANT

ORDER The Court has reviewed Tigue’s § 1983 complaint. It reads like a § 2254 habeas petition. He is challenging the legality of his criminal conviction and is seeking release from custody. That relief isn’t available to him under § 1983. By the Order, the Court is giving Tigue the opportunity to clarify the nature of this action. E.g., Spencer v. Haynes, 774 F.3d 467, 471 (8th Cir. 2014). He must file a notice stating whether he intended to file a habeas petition. If he did, the Court will direct the Clerk to convert the case. Fair warning, though. If this case is converted to a habeas petition, and if the Court ultimately denies relief on the merits, any later § 2254 petition will be subject to the statute’s restrictions on successive petitions. Shaw v. Delo, 971 F.2d 181, 184 (8th Cir. 1992). Tigue must file his notice no later than 7 March 2025. If he fails to do so, the Court will dismiss his case pursuant to Local Rule 5.5.

Tigue’s embedded motion to appoint counsel is premature and denied without prejudice. Hoggard v. Purkett, 29 F.3d 469, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). So Ordered. MPrv4arstoll D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 3 Lelprvany Aas

2.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tigue v. Arkansas, State of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tigue-v-arkansas-state-of-ared-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack