Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_20-cv-00031/USCOURTS-ared-2_20-cv-00031-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arkansas County Sheriff
Defendant
Antonio Terrell Holliman
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

DELTA DIVISION 

ANTONIO TERRELL HOLLIMAN PETITIONER 

v. NO. 2:20-cv-00031 BSM-PSH 

ARKANSAS COUNTY SHERIFF RESPONDENT 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

INSTRUCTIONS 

 The following proposed Recommendation has been sent to United 

States District Judge Brian S. Miller. 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 2:20-cv-00031-BSM Document 15 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 6
2

DISPOSITION 

Petitioner Antonio Terrell Holliman (“Holliman”) began this case by 

filing a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. 

In the petition, he alleged that his constitutional rights have been, and are 

being, violated while he is confined in the Arkansas County Detention 

Center awaiting trial in Arkansas County Circuit Court case number CR2018-181.1 He raised four claims in his petition; they are as follows: 

GROUND ONE. Excessive bail, cruel and usual punishment. 

Didn’t receive warrant until 11-28-18, state held certified mail 

for 30 plus days. DNA got took almost a year later on Oct. 2 

2019, still awaiting results. 

Supporting facts. Got incarcerated 10-29-18, went to 

court 10-31-18, got bail set to 50,000, tried to make bail, they 

raised it to 150,000, state held my mail letting it expire. They 

gave me a warrant before polygraph test or DNA was done. They 

just locked me up without a warrant on 10-29-18, and got 

information 11-28-18, violating my Due Process. 

                                                            

1

   The records maintained by the Administrative Office of the Arkansas Courts 

reflect that a jury trial in CR-2018-181 is scheduled to begin on April 23, 2020. See 

https://caseinfo.arcourts.gov. 

Case 2:20-cv-00031-BSM Document 15 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 6
3

GROUND TWO. Polygraph test. The examiner’s name is 

blank. File #, case #, and issue all blank. Motion [for] Discovery 

contains no arresting officer statement, witness statements, 

victim statement, doctor. I received none in my motion. 

Supporting facts. The guy tampered with polygraph test. 

I know I was honest. My motion discovery I received was empty 

come in a regular envelope. 

GROUND THREE. Right to a speedy trial. Been in jail 16 

months, been living in Arkansas 6 years. Soon as I move to 

Stuttgart probably a month got arrested over false accusations. 

Report got done on 10-28-18. My paper state sex ... was done 

on 10-29-18. 

Supporting facts. Been in here since 10-29-18, all they do 

is toll speedy trial. I be available. I escaped to get some help. I 

feared for my life because I’m an innocent man. 

GROUND FOUR. On Escape II charge, back door in pod 

been messed up for about 4 months. Jail administrator knew 

and didn’t fix correctly, allowed me to come in from doctor 

with arm brace with metal in it. Did not charge for the drops 

they find. 

Case 2:20-cv-00031-BSM Document 15 Filed 04/20/20 Page 3 of 6
4

Supporting facts. It was noted in security log, they did not 

do counts, did not do correct walk around, front door of F pod 

is closed by a small metal plate. They literally saw the camera, 

didn’t never charge anyone, if they charging me, they furnished 

prohibited articles. 

Holliman asks that the charges against him be dropped, he be released 

from custody, and he be compensated for the violations. 

 In Coppock v. Ryals, 2018 WL 3979013 (E.D.Ark. 2018), report and 

recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 3978166 (E.D.Ark. 2018), a pre-trial 

detainee made similar claims in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241.2

United States District Judge James M. Moody, Jr., adopted the report and 

recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney and 

dismissed the petition without prejudice for the following reason: 

                                                            

2

   The pre-trial detainee in that case alleged the following: 

... Petitioner states he has a pending criminal case in Faulkner County 

(Conway), Arkansas, and that he is being denied the right to a fast a 

speedy trial in violation of the due process. He states a Motion for Speedy 

Trial was filed in October 2017, with ruling by the state court. He also 

argues that he is being denied the constitutional right to life and liberty 

due to an excessive $250,000 bail. Third, he claims he has been denied 

effective assistance of counsel throughout all pretrial proceedings. He 

seeks this Court to issue an Order to Show Cause upon Respondent to 

account for the long court delays and excessive bail. [Footnote omitted]. 

See Coppock v. Ryals, 2018 WL 3978166, 1. 

Case 2:20-cv-00031-BSM Document 15 Filed 04/20/20 Page 4 of 6
5

Before a state prisoner can seek federal habeas relief, he 

ordinarily must “exhaus[t] the remedies available in the courts 

of the State,” 28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(1)(A), “thereby affording those 

courts the first opportunity to address and correct” alleged 

violations of a prisoner's federal constitutional rights. ... State 

remedies are not exhausted if a petitioner “has the right under 

the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the 

question presented.” ... 

The exhaustion requirement applies to 2241 habeas 

petitions challenging a pending state criminal prosecution. 

Sacco v. Falke, 649 F.2d 634, 635-37 (8th Cir. 1981) (future 

prosecution under state indictment); Davis v. Muellar, 643 F.2d 

521, 525 (8th Cir. 1981) (pending state prosecution). Federal 

courts should decline jurisdiction over pretrial habeas petitions 

brought pursuant to 2241 if the issues may be resolved by the 

state trial court or other state procedures are available to the 

petitioner. Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 

1987); see also Wingo v. Ciccone, 507 F.2d 354, 357 (8th Cir. 

1974) (“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.”). 

Petitioner has not demonstrated that the existing state 

procedures are ineffective to protect his constitutional rights 

or that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting federal 

intervention with the state's pending judicial procedures. Thus, 

this habeas action should be dismissed, without prejudice. 

See Id., 2018 WL 3979013 at 2.3

                                                            

3 See also McKee v. Kelley, 2019 WL 5076391 (E.D.Ark. 2019), report and 

recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 3824186 (E.D.Ark. 2019). In that case, United States 

District Judge Kristine G. Baker adopted the report and recommendation of United 

States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe and dismissed a pre-trial detainee’s petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus. Judge Baker did so because the federal courts should abstain 

from considering the claims in accordance with Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), 

and because the detainee had not yet exhausted his state court remedies. 

Case 2:20-cv-00031-BSM Document 15 Filed 04/20/20 Page 5 of 6
6

The undersigned recognizes that sua sponte dismissals are not 

favored. See Haley v. Dormire, 845 F.2d 1488 (8th Cir. 1988). Nevertheless, 

like in Coppock v. Ryals, Holliman has not demonstrated that the existing 

state procedures are ineffective to protect his constitutional rights or that 

extraordinary circumstances exist warranting federal intervention with the 

state's pending judicial procedures. Moreover, one or more of his claims 

appear to be in the nature of condition of confinement claims and are not 

proper in a proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. For these reasons, the 

undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed without prejudice. 

DATED this 20th day of April, 2020. 

 __________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:20-cv-00031-BSM Document 15 Filed 04/20/20 Page 6 of 6