Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00186/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00186-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wesley Jefferson
Plaintiff
Wendy Kelly
Defendant

Document Text:

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

WESLEY JEFFERSON 

ADC #104933 PETITIONER 

 

V. NO. 5:15CV00186 JM/JTR 

WENDY KELLY, Director, 

Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

 The following Recommended Disposition (“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 the entry of 

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

the right to appeal questions of fact. 

 Mail any objections to: 

 Clerk, United States District Court 

 Eastern District of Arkansas 

 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 

 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

Case 5:15-cv-00186-JM Document 4 Filed 06/25/15 Page 1 of 4
 -2-

I. Background

 Petitioner, Wesley Jefferson (“Jefferson”), has filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.1 Doc. 2 He attacks his 2006 convictions for 

capital murder, aggravated robbery, theft of property, and fleeing. Id. 

 Jefferson challenged the same convictions in an earlier § 2254 habeas 

Petition, which was denied by United States District Judge James M. Moody. 

Jefferson v. Norris, E.D. Ark. No. 5:10CV00167 JMM, at docs. 23-24.

2

 Jefferson 

was later denied a Certificate of Appealability by the Eighth Circuit. Id. at 30. 

 On June 9, 2015, Jefferson initiated the current § 2254 habeas action. Doc. 

2. For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that the Petition be 

dismissed, without prejudice, because Jefferson has not obtained permission from 

the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive habeas action. See Rule 4 

of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 

II. Discussion

 This is a successive § 2254 habeas action challenging Jefferson’s 2006 

convictions for capital murder, aggravated robbery, theft of property, and fleeing. 

Only the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has the authority to grant permission to 

file a successive § 2254 habeas action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (“Before a 

 1

 Jefferson has also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Doc. 1. Based on the provided financial 

information, he is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 2

 While Jefferson’s original habeas action was pending, he filed a second habeas action attacking the same 

convictions, Jefferson v. Hobbs, E.D. Ark. No. 5:10CV00321 JMM, which was dismissed as successive. 

Case 5:15-cv-00186-JM Document 4 Filed 06/25/15 Page 2 of 4
 -3-

second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district 

court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order 

authorizing the district court to consider the application.”). Until Jefferson obtains 

the required authorization from the Eighth Circuit, this Court lacks jurisdiction to 

proceed with this habeas action.3 Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152-53, 157 

(2007). 

III. Conclusion

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 

 1. Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Doc. 1, be 

GRANTED; 

 2. The 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 2, 

be DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, so that Petitioner may seek 

authorization from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(b)(3)(A), to file a successive habeas petition; 

 3. A Certificate of Appealability be DENIED, see 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(1)-(2); Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District 

Courts; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); and 

 3

 Finally, Jefferson has filed a “Motion to Proceed Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner Being Unable To 

Pay State Filing Fees Thereby Exhaust[ing] Available State Remed[ies].” Doc. 3. In this Motion, Jefferson argues 

that the ADC and the state courts have prevented him from exhausting his remedies by denying him in forma 

pauperis status in various state habeas actions. At best, Jefferson’s arguments go to “cause” that might excuse his 

procedural default of certain habeas claims. However, these arguments are moot until he receives permission from 

the Eighth Circuit to proceed with a successive habeas action. 

Case 5:15-cv-00186-JM Document 4 Filed 06/25/15 Page 3 of 4
 -4-

 4. Petitioner’s “Motion to Proceed Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254” (doc. 3) be 

DENIED, AS MOOT. 

 DATED this 25th day of June, 2015. 

____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:15-cv-00186-JM Document 4 Filed 06/25/15 Page 4 of 4