Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00671/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00671-0/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)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

LATREL PHIPPS PETITIONER 

 

VS. 4:20-cv-00671-BRW-JTR 

LAFAYETTE WOODS, Sheriff, 

Jefferson County, Arkansas RESPONDENT 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

 The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent 

to United States District Judge Billy Roy Wilson. 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 the entry of this 

Recommendation. The failure to timely file objections may result in waiver of the 

right to appeal questions of fact. 

I. Introduction 

 On May 27, 2020, Petitioner Latrel Phipps (“Phipps”) filed a pro se § 2241 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Doc. 1.

1

 Based on Phipps’s allegations and the 

 

1

 Because Phipps seeks relief before trial and judgment in state court, his remedy, if any, 

lies under § 2241(c)(3). Neville v. Cavanaugh, 611 F.2d 673, 675 (7th Cir. 1979) (federal court’s 

jurisdiction over pretrial habeas petition is under § 2241(c)(3)); compare Crouch v. Norris, 251 

F.3d 720, 723 (8th Cir. 2001) (person in custody pursuant to the judgment of state court can obtain 

habeas relief only through § 2254, no matter how pleadings are styled; rejecting state prisoner’s 

contention that his petition should be classified as § 2241 petition). 

Case 4:20-cv-00671-BRW Document 3 Filed 06/10/20 Page 1 of 6
2 

Court’s review of publicly available information, Phipps is a pretrial detainee in the 

W.C. “Dub” Brassell Detention Center in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, awaiting the 

resolution of pending state criminal charges. Phipps claims that, because his bond 

is excessive, and he is at greater risk of life-threatening complications from COVID19,2

 this Court should order his immediate release from state pre-trial detention. Id. 

at 1.

3

 

For the reasons stated below, the Court recommends that Phipps’s habeas 

Petition be dismissed, without prejudice. 

II. Discussion 

 In reviewing a federal habeas petition, a court must summarily deny relief “if 

it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is 

not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United 

States District Courts (applicable to § 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b)); 28 U.S.C. § 

2243. Additionally, a court “may take judicial notice of proceedings in other courts 

of record.” See Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 760 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (court 

 

2

 Phipps states that he suffers chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”), which 

makes him more vulnerable to health complications from COVID-19. Doc. 1 at 1. 

3

 Phipps also requests “compassionate release”, a legal term of art that, under U.S.C. 

3582(b)(1), allows a federal sentencing court to reduce a federal defendant’s sentence based on 

“extraordinary and compelling” reasons. Because Phipps is a state prisoner awaiting resolution of 

state charges, compassionate release is not an available remedy. 

Case 4:20-cv-00671-BRW Document 3 Filed 06/10/20 Page 2 of 6
3 

may take judicial notice of judicial opinions and public records); see also Conforti 

v. United States, 74 F.3d 838, 840 (8th Cir. 1996) (court may sua sponte take judicial 

notice of proceedings in other courts if they relate directly to the matters at issue). 

 Public records establish that Phipps is, at present, detained in the W.C. “Dub” 

Brassell Adult Detention Center, awaiting trial on criminal charges. See State v. 

Phipps, Jefferson County Circuit Court Case No. 35CR-20-209.4

 Phipps’s pending 

charges are as follows: (1) felony possession of ecstasy with intent to deliver; (2) 

felony possession of marijuana with intent to deliver; (3) being a felon in possession 

of a firearm; and (4) simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms. The trial court 

set a bond for Phipps in the amount of $75,000. 

On June 1, 2020, Phipps’s attorney filed a Motion to Reduce Bond from 

$75,000 to $10,000 based on the COVID-19 pandemic. On June 3, 2020, the 

prosecutor filed a response opposing the reduction of bond. On June 4, 2020, the 

trial court denied Phipps’s Motion. 

Under well-established federal case law, Phipps’s habeas Petition raises 

claims that are not cognizable under § 2241 and must be dismissed, without 

 

4

 The Court has reviewed the state court docket, which is publicly accessible on the 

Arkansas courts’ website. See https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov. The Court has also verified 

Phipps’s presence on the publicly accessible inmate roster at the W.C. “Dub” Brassell Adult 

Detention Center on the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office website. See

https://www.jeffcoso.org/roster. 

Case 4:20-cv-00671-BRW Document 3 Filed 06/10/20 Page 3 of 6
4 

prejudice. First, to state a viable claim, a § 2241 habeas petitioner must allege that 

his rights have been violated under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 

States. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Federal habeas courts are 

not permitted “to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions.” Id. 

Thus, Phipps’s allegations that state authorities have failed to comply with state 

laws, in connection with his release on bond, are not cognizable in a federal habeas 

action. 

Second, before a state prisoner can seek federal habeas relief, he must 

“exhaus[t] the remedies available in the courts of the State.” 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(b)(1)(A); Sacco v. Falke, 649 F.2d 634, 635-37 (8th Cir. 1981) (requiring 

exhaustion concerning a § 2241 petition brought by state pretrial detainee); Davis v. 

Muellar, 643 F.2d 521, 525 (8th Cir. 1981); Williams v. O’Brien, 792 F.2d 986, 987 

(10th Cir. 1986) (requiring exhaustion concerning a § 2241 petition). 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 McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir. 1997). 

If Phipps believes his constitutional rights have been violated in connection 

with the trial court’s refusal to reduce his bond, he first must raise that claim with 

the trial court, and, if he receives an adverse ruling, file a petition for writ of certiorari 

to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Trujillo v. State, 2016 Ark. 49, 2, 483 S.W.3d 801, 

Case 4:20-cv-00671-BRW Document 3 Filed 06/10/20 Page 4 of 6
5 

803 (2016) (citations omitted) (certiorari is the proper remedy to review a circuit 

court’s bail-bond proceedings). Phipps appears to have taken the first step, by filing 

a motion with the trial court claiming his current bond is excessive. While the trial 

court promptly denied the motion, Phipps has not filed a petition for writ of certiorari 

to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Thus, Phipps has not exhausted his state court 

remedies. 

Third, federal courts generally must abstain from the exercise of § 2241 

jurisdiction if the issues raised in a habeas petition may be resolved either by trial on 

the merits in the state court, or by other available state court procedures. “Absent 

extraordinary circumstances, federal courts should not interfere with the states’ 

pending judicial processes prior to trial and conviction, even though the prisoner 

claims he is being held in violation of the Constitution.” Sacco v. Falke, 649 F.2d 

634, 636 (8th Cir. 1981) (quoting Wingo v. Ciccone, 507 F.2d 354, 357 (8th Cir. 

1974)). 

Accordingly, because Phipps’s § 2241 habeas petition fails to state a claim for 

relief, it should be dismissed, without prejudice. 

III. Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED, SUA SPONTE, that Petitioner 

Latrell Phipps’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed, without prejudice. 

Case 4:20-cv-00671-BRW Document 3 Filed 06/10/20 Page 5 of 6
6 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability be 

DENIED.5

 

 Dated this 10th day of June, 2020. 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

5

 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) requires a COA to appeal from “the final order in a habeas 

corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state 

court.” See Evans v. Circuit Court of Cook Cty., Ill., 569 F.3d 665, 666 (7th Cir. 2009) (holding 

that state prisoners proceeding under § 2241 must obtain a COA where the target of the habeas 

petition arises out of process issued by a state court.); Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 825 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (same). 

Case 4:20-cv-00671-BRW Document 3 Filed 06/10/20 Page 6 of 6