Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_24-cv-04052/USCOURTS-arwd-4_24-cv-04052-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shatina Ann Logan
Petitioner
State of Arkansas
Respondent

Document Text:

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

TEXARKANA DIVISION 

SHATINA ANN LOGAN PETITIONER 

v. No. 4:24-cv-04052-SOH-BAB 

 

STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Before the Court is a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a 

Person in State Custody. ECF No. 1. The Petition was filed by Shatina Ann Logan (“Logan”) on 

May 21, 2024. Her application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on May 23, 2024. ECF 

No. 4. 

The case has been referred to the undersigned. The Court finds no response is necessary to 

the Petition to issue this Report and Recommendation. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 According to public records, of which the Court will take judicial notice,1

 Logan was 

convicted, pursuant to a jury verdict, under Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-54-125 for Fleeing in 

Howard County Circuit Court on March 12, 2024. ECF No. 1. She was sentenced that same day 

to 12 months in the Howard County Detention Center. The docket in her state criminal case also 

reveals her attorney filed a Notice of Appeal with the Arkansas Supreme Court on March 21, 2024, 

and a First Amended Notice of Appeal to the Arkansas Court of Appeals on April 1, 2024. The 

state court docket entries do not show Logan is currently seeking any post-conviction relief in state 

court through a Rule 37.1 Petition.2

1 See Stahl v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 327 F.3d 697, 700 (8th Cir. 2003) (“The district court may take judicial notice of 

public records and may thus consider them on a motion to dismiss.”). Judicial records are considered part of the 

public record. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). 2 See https://caseinfonew.arcourts.gov/opad/case/31 CR 23-27 (accessed May 23, 2024).

Case 4:24-cv-04052-SOH Document 5 Filed 05/28/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
2 

 In the instant Petition, Logan indicates she did not appeal her conviction because “Unable 

to hire the necessary appellate lawyer due to lack of finances” (ECF No. 1, p. 5) and “The 

traditional appeal process would take longer than my sentence” (ECF No. 1, p. 6). She is currently 

serving her sentence in the Howard County Detention Center, in Nashville, Arkansas.3

 ECF No. 

1. 

II. DISCUSSION 

Under the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), Logan’s Petition cannot be granted 

“unless it appears that—(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the 

State; or (B) (i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist 

that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.” Here, there has been no 

allegation of any absence of available State corrective process or other circumstances which would 

render the process ineffective to protect Logan’s rights. 

Further, the docket in her state criminal case indicates she is pursuing a direct appeal to the 

Arkansas Court of Appeals. Clearly, Logan has not exhausted her available state remedies. 

Accordingly, the § 2254 Petition should be dismissed as premature. Once Logan has exhausted 

her state court remedies, she may refile her habeas Petition in federal court. 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases states: “If it plainly appears from the 

petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the 

judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Here, it is clear Logan 

is not entitled to relief and the Petition should be dismissed. 

3 See https://caseinfonew.arcourts.gov/opad/case/31 CR 23-27 (accessed May 23, 2024).

Case 4:24-cv-04052-SOH Document 5 Filed 05/28/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
3 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk should be directed to notify Logan 

of the dismissal pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. 

 The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation 

in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely 

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Parties are 

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the 

district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990). 

DATED this 28th day of May 2024.

 /s/ Barry A. Bryant 

 HON. BARRY A. BRYANT 

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:24-cv-04052-SOH Document 5 Filed 05/28/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>