Tigue v. Arkansas, State of

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.