Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_19-cv-00060/USCOURTS-ared-2_19-cv-00060-0/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

EASTERN DIVISION

DWIGHT L. JACKSON PETITIONER

ADC #096622

V. NO. 2:19-CV-60-JM-BD

WENDY KELLEY, Director, 

Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT

ORDER

On June 3, 2019, Petitioner Dwight Jackson filed a pro se petition for writ of 

habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Docket entry #2) Respondent Kelley timely 

responded, raising three arguments for dismissal. (#12) In particular, Respondent argued 

that the petition should be dismissed due to Mr. Jackson’s failure to exhaust his state 

remedies. Rather than dismiss the petition, the Court will stay the federal petition and 

allow Mr. Jackson an opportunity to exhaust his state remedies. 

Following his guilty plea and sentencing, Mr. Jackson sought post-conviction 

relief in state court under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1. (#12-5) After a 

hearing on the petition, the Court ruled from the bench, denying Rule 37 relief. (#12-6 at 

15) The Rule 37 Order was signed on July 31, 2019; however, it was not filed until 

August 1, 2019. (#12-7) 

Until the order was entered of record, Mr. Jackson had no order from which to 

appeal. See ARK. SUP. CT. ADMIN. ORDER 2(b)(2) (judgment or order is entered when it 

is stamped by the clerk); Zimmerman v. Cir. Ct. of Miller Co., 2018 ARK. 264, at 5 

(holding an oral order announced from the bench does not become effective until reduced 

Case 2:19-cv-00060-JM Document 13 Filed 08/20/19 Page 1 of 3
2

to writing and filed as required by Admin. Order No. 2). Furthermore, the time for filing 

a notice of appeal from the August 1, 2019 order has not yet expired. See ARK. R. APP. P. 

–CRIM. 2(a)(4) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30-days of entry of order denying 

Rule 37 relief). 

Accordingly, because Mr. Jackson still has time to exhaust his state court remedies

should he wish to do so, this Court will stay his federal habeas petition. A stay will allow 

Mr. Jackson to raise his federal constitutional claim in Arkansas’s appellate courts 

without running afoul of the federal one-year statute of limitations for filing a federal 

petition. A stay-and-abeyance is appropriate in this circumstance. See Pace v. 

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416-17 (2005) (where a petitioner has good cause for 

confusion about state filings, has presented potentially meritorious claims, and has not 

engaged in intentionally dilatory tactics, a district court should stay rather than dismiss 

petition). A stay is the appropriate course here even though it appears that Mr. Jackson 

has presented only an unexhausted claim. See Heleva v. Brooks, 581 F.3d 187, 191 (3d 

Cir. 2009) (noting that the Supreme Court in Pace sanctioned the use of the stay-andabeyance procedure in a context outside that of mixed petitions). Accordingly, Mr. 

Jackson’s petition is STAYED. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively terminate this case. Mr. Jackson

will have 30 days from the conclusion of his state proceedings to file a motion to reopen 

this case. After the case is reopened, both parties will have the opportunity to amend their 

pleadings.

Case 2:19-cv-00060-JM Document 13 Filed 08/20/19 Page 2 of 3
3

DATED this 20th day of August, 2019.

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00060-JM Document 13 Filed 08/20/19 Page 3 of 3