Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_24-cv-00961/USCOURTS-ared-4_24-cv-00961-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

GREGORY K. WHITT PETITIONER 

v. NO. 4:24-cv-00961-JM-PSH 

HOBE RUNION, Sebastian County Sheriff RESPONDENT 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

INSTRUCTIONS 

 The following Recommendation has been sent to United States 

District Judge James M. Moody, Jr. You may file written objections to all 

or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) 

specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection, and 

(2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this 

Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal 

questions of fact. 

Case 4:24-cv-00961-JM Document 31 Filed 01/08/25 Page 1 of 9
2 

DISPOSITION 

 In this case, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, petitioner Gregory K. 

Whitt (“Whitt”) maintains that the pre-trial proceedings in an Arkansas 

state trial court, and his continued pre-trial detention as a part of those 

proceedings, have brought about the violation of his constitutional rights. 

It is recommended that this case be dismissed without prejudice because 

the state court proceeding is currently on-going, and he failed to exhaust 

his remedies before beginning the case at bar. 

 The record reflects that in December of 2023, Whitt was charged in 

Sebastian County Circuit Court case number 66FCR-23-1170 with domestic 

battery in the second degree, a felony, and terroristic threatening in the 

first degree, also a felony. See Docket Entry 20, Exhibit A.1 A public 

defender was appointed to represent Whitt, and counsel raised Whitt’s 

fitness to proceed to trial in 66FCR-23-1170. See Docket Entry 20, Exhibit 

A. Whitt was then evaluated by a clinical psychologist, who opined that 

Whitt was not fit to proceed to trial. See Docket Entry 20, Exhibits A, B. In 

May of 2024, the state trial court entered a “Not-Fit-To-Proceed 

Commitment Order” that provided, in relevant part, the following: 

1 Respondent Hobe Runion’s recital of the facts has been confirmed by viewing the 

publicly available website at https://caseinfo.arcourts.gov/opad/case/66FCR-23-1170.

Case 4:24-cv-00961-JM Document 31 Filed 01/08/25 Page 2 of 9
3 

1. That based on the evaluation performed by Morgan Hill, 

Ph.D., with the Arkansas State Hospital, it has been determined 

that [Whitt] lacks the fitness to proceed at this time. Pursuant 

to A.C.A. 5-2-310, the proceedings against [Whitt] are 

suspended and he/she is hereby committed to the custody of 

the Arkansas Department of Human Services for detention, 

care, and treatment until restoration of fitness to proceed. 

... 

3. The Court [o]rders the Department of Human Services, 

pursuant to A.C.A. 5-2-310 to report back to this Court if within 

ten months [Whitt] regains his fitness to proceed. Otherwise, 

the Department of Human Services is to report ten months from 

the date of this order whether: 

A. [Whitt’s] mental disease or defect is of a nature 

that preclud[es] restoration of fitness to proceed, 

and 

B. [He] presents a danger to himself or to the person 

or property of others. 

See Docket Entry 20, Exhibit B. Whitt was detained and continues to be 

detained as of the date of these Findings and Recommendation. 

 Later that same month, Whitt filed a pro se motion contesting the 

“Not-Fit-To-Proceed Commitment Order.” See Docket Entry 20, Exhibit A. 

In the motion, he challenged the clinical psychologist’s report and asked 

the state trial court to hold a hearing on the report. He soon joined that 

motion with a motion to dismiss his attorney. See Docket Entry 20, Exhibit 

A. To date, the court has not acted on either motion. 

Case 4:24-cv-00961-JM Document 31 Filed 01/08/25 Page 3 of 9
4 

 In November of 2024, Whitt began this case by filing a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus. He maintained that the pre-trial proceedings in 

66FCR-23-1170, and his continued pre-trial detention as a part of those 

proceedings, have brought about the violation of his constitutional rights. 

Specifically, he raised the following claims in a subsequently filed amended 

petition, a statement of facts, and several addendums: 

 1. The state trial court lacks jurisdiction, venue is 

improper, and the court is laboring under a conflict of interest. 

 2. Because jurisdiction is lacking, venue is improper, and 

there is a conflict of interest, he is being illegally detained. 

3. His constitutional rights to competent counsel and 

counsel of his choice are being denied. 

4. The state trial court is denying Whitt the right to a 

hearing on the question of whether he is fit to proceed to trial 

in 66FCR-23-1170. 

5. His constitutional rights are being violated in a number 

of other respects, including constitutional violations that 

occurred in a prior criminal proceeding. 

6. His constitutional right to a reasonable bond is being 

denied. 

Case 4:24-cv-00961-JM Document 31 Filed 01/08/25 Page 4 of 9
5 

Whitt acknowledged in his amended petition that he did not present his 

claims to the highest state court having jurisdiction. He did note, however, 

that he raised in the state trial court his challenges to the court’s 

jurisdiction, his fitness to proceed to trial in 66FCR-23-1170, and counsel’s 

representation. Whitt asked that he be immediately released from 

detention.2

 Respondent Hobe Runion (“Runion”), the Sebastian County Sheriff, 

responded to the petition by filing the pending motion to dismiss. See 

Docket Entry 20. Runion prefaced his motion by noting that although Whitt 

is currently being held in the Sebastian County Detention Center, Whitt is 

actually in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Human Services 

pursuant to the “Not-Fit-To-Proceed Commitment Order.” In any event, 

Runion maintained that the petition should be dismissed because Whitt 

failed to exhaust his remedies before beginning the case at bar. 

 Whitt responded to Runion’s motion to dismiss by filing a motion to 

object/suppress/strike. See Docket Entry 23. In Whitt’s motion, he briefly 

addressed the exhaustion question. He maintained that his failure to 

exhaust should be excused because this case is out of the ordinary. 

2 Whitt later filed a motion to amend his petition a second time. In the motion, 

he asked that his requested relief be limited to his immediate release, if his release is 

the only relief that he can be awarded. 

Case 4:24-cv-00961-JM Document 31 Filed 01/08/25 Page 5 of 9
6 

There are questions raised by this case that the undersigned will not 

attempt to answer.3 This much is clear, though: the federal court should 

not step into the ongoing state court proceeding in 66FCR-23-1170, and 

Whitt failed to exhaust his remedies before beginning the case at bar. 

With respect to the ongoing state court proceeding in 66FCR-23-1170, 

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), makes clear that the federal court 

should abstain from interfering in ongoing state court proceedings.4

“Accordingly, a federal court should abstain from hearing constitutional 

claims when: (1) there is an ongoing state proceeding; (2) the state 

proceeding implicates important state interests; and (3) there is an 

adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise the constitutional 

challenges.” See Pugh v. Brunson, No. 4:20-cv-00373-KGB, 2021 WL 

3 For instance, it may be that this case should be construed as one pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. 2241. See Phipps v. Woods, No. 4:20-cv-00671-BRW-JTR, 2020 WL 3579389, 1 

(E.D. Ark. June 10, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:20-cv-00671-

BRW, 2020 WL 3579499 (E.D. Ark. July 1, 2020) (“Because Phipps seeks relief before 

trial and judgment in state court, his remedy, if any, lies under 2241(c)(3).”). 

 It is also possible that Runion is not Whitt’s actual custodial agent. The “Not-FitTo-Proceed Commitment Order” reflects that Whitt was “committed to the custody of 

the Arkansas Department of Human Services for detention, care, and treatment until 

restoration of [his] fitness to proceed.” See Docket Entry 20, Exhibit B. 

4

 In Runion’s motion to dismiss, he did not raise Younger v. Harris. The undersigned 

raises it now sua sponte. See Geier v. Missouri Ethics Commission, 715 F.3d 674 (8th 

Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal where district court abstained sua sponte pursuant to 

Younger v. Harris).

Case 4:24-cv-00961-JM Document 31 Filed 01/08/25 Page 6 of 9
7 

627792, 2 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 25, 2021). If these elements are met, the federal 

court should abstain unless the court detects “bad faith, harassment, or 

some other extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention 

inappropriate.” See Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

With regard to an “extraordinary circumstance,” the circumstance must be 

extraordinary in the sense of creating “an extraordinary pressing need for 

immediate federal equitable relief.” See Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). 

Here, 66FCR-23-1170 is clearly an ongoing state court proceeding. 

Whitt is awaiting trial in that case, and the Arkansas Department of Human 

Services is to report to the state trial court if, within ten months of May of 

2024, he regains his fitness to proceed. Otherwise, the Arkansas 

Department of Human Services is to report by March of 2025 whether his 

mental disease or defect precludes restoration of his fitness to proceed, 

and whether he presents a danger to himself or the person or property of 

others. The State of Arkansas has an important interest in enforcing its 

criminal laws, see Pugh v. Brunson, 2021 WL 627792, and Whitt can raise 

the claims at bar in 66FCR-23-1170. Additionally, his boldface allegations 

notwithstanding, he has not shown bad faith, harassment, or some other 

extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate. 

Case 4:24-cv-00961-JM Document 31 Filed 01/08/25 Page 7 of 9
8 

With respect to the steps Whitt took before filing the case at bar, it 

is axiomatic that a state prisoner must exhaust the remedies available to 

him in state court before seeking federal habeas corpus relief. See Phipps 

v. Woods, No. 4:20-cv-00671-BRW-JTR, 2020 WL 3579389, 2 (E.D. Ark. June 

10, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:20-cv-00671-BRW, 

2020 WL 3579499 (E.D. Ark. July 1, 2020). “In order to fully exhaust his 

state court remedies, a prisoner must fairly present his constitutional 

claims to the highest available state court before seeking relief in federal 

court.” See Id., 2020 WL 3579389, 2. 

Although Whitt attempted to raise the claims at bar in the state trial 

court by filing pro se motions but never got rulings on the motions, he never 

presented the claims to the highest state court having jurisdiction, i.e., 

the state appellate courts. He asks, though, that his failure to do so be 

excused because this case is out of the ordinary. 

28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(1)(B) identifies two exceptions to the exhaustion 

requirement: there is an absence of available state corrective process, and 

circumstances exist that render such process ineffective. The exceptions 

are inapplicable in this instance. First, Whitt does not lack the opportunity 

to seek state court redress of his claims. Second, he has failed to show why 

the available process is ineffective. 

Case 4:24-cv-00961-JM Document 31 Filed 01/08/25 Page 8 of 9
9 

Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the state court proceeding in 

66FCR-23-1170 is currently on-going, and Whitt has not shown bad faith, 

harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would make 

abstention inappropriate. Additionally, he failed to exhaust his remedies 

before beginning the case at bar, and there is no justification for excusing 

his failure to exhaust. It is therefore recommended that Runion’s motion 

to dismiss be granted, see Docket Entry 20; Whitt’s motion to 

object/suppress/strike be denied, see Docket Entry 23; Whitt’s petition be 

dismissed without prejudice; all requested relief be denied; and judgment 

be entered for Runion. In accordance with Rule 11(a) of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, a 

certificate of appealability should also be denied. Whitt cannot make a 

“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. 

2253(c)(2).5

DATED this 8th day of January, 2025. 

 __________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

5 Whitt’s most recent motion for copies is denied. See Docket Entry 28. 

Case 4:24-cv-00961-JM Document 31 Filed 01/08/25 Page 9 of 9