Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_14-cv-00048/USCOURTS-ared-5_14-cv-00048-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nickarlos Antwan Banks
Plaintiff
Wendy Kelley
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

NICKARLOS ANTWAN BANKS 

ADC #106872 PETITIONER 

VS. 5:14CV00048 BSM/JTR 

WENDY KELLEY, Director, 

Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT 

 

RECOMMENDED PARTIAL DISPOSITION 

 The following Recommended Partial Disposition (“Recommendation”) has 

been sent to Chief 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 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 5:14-cv-00048-BSM Document 20 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 2
2 

I. Discussion 

 On April 9, 2015, Petitioner, Nickarlos Antwan Banks, moved to stay this § 

2254 action pending the outcome of his pending Rule 37 appeal in the Arkansas 

Supreme Court, Banks v. State, No. CR 15-8 . Doc. 13. 

 On October 8, 2015, the Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed Banks’s appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Banks’s Rule 37 action was untimely. Banks v. 

State, 2015 Ark. 368, 2015 WL 5895392 (2015) (per curiam). On December 17, 

2015, the Court denied Banks’s request for rehearing, and the appellate mandate 

issued on December 22, 2015. See docket in Ark. Sup Ct. No. CR 15-8 (available 

online at https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov). 

 Because of the final disposition of Banks’s Rule 37 appeal, his requested 

stay is moot. 

II. Conclusion 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Motion to Stay 

(doc. 13) be DENIED, AS MOOT. 

 Dated this 5th day of January, 2016. 

 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 5:14-cv-00048-BSM Document 20 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 2