Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00121/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00121-0/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 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

KeONDRA M. CHESTANG PETITIONER

ADC #134005

v. CASE NO.: 5:15CV00121-SWW-BD

WENDY KELLEY, Director, 

Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

I. Procedure for Filing Objections

This Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to United

States District Judge Susan Webber Wright. You may file written objections to this

Recommendation. If you file objections, they must be specific and must include the

factual or legal basis for your objection. 

Your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court

Clerk within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. 

If no objections are filed, Judge Wright can adopt this Recommendation without

independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, you may also waive any right to

appeal questions of fact.

 

II. Background

In 2005, a jury found KeOndra Montreal Chestang guilty of aggravated robbery,

and the court sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department

of Correction. Mr. Chestang appealed his conviction, but the Arkansas Court of Appeals

Case 5:15-cv-00121-SWW Document 3 Filed 04/21/15 Page 1 of 5
affirmed the conviction. Chestang v. State, No. CACR05-1170, 2006 WL 2879429, *4

(Oct. 11, 2006). Mr. Chestang did not seek review in the Arkansas Supreme Court. He

did file a state habeas corpus petition, however, on February 19, 2009, which the trial

court denied on April 8, 2009.

On August 4, 2009, Mr. Chestang filed a habeas petition with this Court under 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Chestang v. Norris, 2009 WL 4251049, *2 (E.D. Ark. 2009). The Court

dismissed the petition, with prejudice, on November 23, 2009. Id. Mr. Chestang

appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit entered a judgment dismissing the

appeal and denying Mr. Chestang’s application for certificate of appealability on April 1,

2010. Chestang v. Norris, No. 10-1031 (April 1, 2010). 

Mr. Chestang filed another habeas petition with this Court on February 27, 2012,

contesting the same conviction at issue in his previous petition. Chestang v. Hobbs, No.

5:12CV00083-SWW-BD, 2012 WL 1409393, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 1, 2012) report and

recommendation adopted, appeal dismissed (Sept. 26, 2012) No. 5:12CV0083-SWW-BD,

2012 WL 1409359 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 23, 2012). The Court dismissed the petition, with

prejudice. Id. Mr. Chestang appealed. The Eighth Circuit entered a judgment denying

his application for certificate of appealability and dismissing his appeal. Chestang v.

Hobbs, No. 12-2213 (Sept. 26, 2012).

Mr. Chestang filed a third petition for writ of habeas corpus with this Court on

December 11, 2014, contesting the same conviction at issue in his prior petitions.

2

Case 5:15-cv-00121-SWW Document 3 Filed 04/21/15 Page 2 of 5
Chestang v. Hobbs, No. 5:14CV00443-SWW-BD (E.D. Ark. Dec. 11, 2014), report and

recommendation adopted (Jan. 16, 2015). The Court dismissed the petition for lack of

jurisdiction because it was an unauthorized successive petition. Id. 

Mr. Chestang has now filed a fourth petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Docket

entry #2) Because this is an unauthorized successive habeas petition, Judge Wright

should summarily dismiss the petition without prejudice.

III. Discussion

Before filing a successive habeas petition in district court under §2254, a petitioner

must seek and receive an order from the court of appeals authorizing the district court to

consider a successive petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The court of appeals can

authorize the filing of a successive petition only if the new petition satisfies certain

statutory requirements. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b);1 Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152-53

(2007). Without an order from the court of appeals authorizing the filing of a second or

1This provision requires dismissal of any claims that were presented in a prior

habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). A claim not previously presented must be

dismissed unless (1) the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive

to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, or (2) the factual predicate of the

claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence

and the underlying facts, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole,

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable

factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. Id.

§2244(b)(2).

3

Case 5:15-cv-00121-SWW Document 3 Filed 04/21/15 Page 3 of 5
successive habeas petition, the district court lacks jurisdiction to hear the petition. Id. at

152-153, 157. 

Summary dismissal of a habeas corpus petition – prior to any response or other

pleading being filed by the State – is appropriate where the petition itself, together with

court records, show that the petition is a second or successive petition filed without

authorization from the court of appeals.2 Rule 4, Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases;

Blackmon v. Armontrout, 61 Fed.Appx. 985, 985 (8th Cir. 2003). 

From the face of the instant petition, read together with the court records, it is

obvious that this petition is a successive habeas corpus petition. Mr. Chestang challenges

the same conviction in this petition as he did in his previous petitions. (#2 at p. 1) He

does not allege or provide any evidence that he has sought or received authorization from

the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive habeas petition. Accordingly, this

Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of this petition. 

Mr. Chestang claims his petition raises new claims, the factual predicate of which

could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence. (#2 at

2 Rule 4 provides:

The clerk must promptly forward the petition to a judge under the

court’s assignment procedure, and the judge must promptly examine

it. If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that

the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge

must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.

If the petition is not dismissed, the judge must order the respondent

to file an answer, motion, or other response within a fixed time, or to

take other action the judge may order. 

4

Case 5:15-cv-00121-SWW Document 3 Filed 04/21/15 Page 4 of 5
p. 14) Even if this is true,3

 Mr. Chestang has not established that the newly discovered

facts, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, are clear and convincing

evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found him

guilty of the underlying offense. 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(2).

IV. Conclusion

The Court recommends that Judge Wright dismiss KeOndra Chestang’s petition

for writ of habeas corpus, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction. 

DATED this 21st day of April, 2015.

 ____________________________________

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3The Court notes that the investigation and “newly discovered” evidence Mr.

Chestang points to dates back to 2013. (#2 at pp. 15-17)

5

Case 5:15-cv-00121-SWW Document 3 Filed 04/21/15 Page 5 of 5