Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03055/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03055-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County of Boone
Defendant
Dean F. O'Neil
Plaintiff
State of Arkansas
Defendant
Gordon Webb
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

DEAN F. O'NEIL PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-3055

STATE OF ARKANSAS;

COUNTY OF BOONE; and

GORDON WEBB, Boone

County Prosecuting Attorney DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 30th day of July, 2007, comes on for

consideration the Report And Recommendation Of The Magistrate

Judge (document #15), and Respondent's Objections To Report And

Recommendation Of The Magistrate Judge (document #16), and the

Court, having carefully reviewed said documents, and the file in

this matter, finds and orders as follows:

1. This case was commenced when plaintiff Dean F. O'Neil

("O'Neil") filed a document entitled "Writ of Mandamus." O'Neil

complained therein that his rights to a speedy trial under the

Sixth Amendment, and to due process under the Fourteenth

Amendment, as well as his rights under the Uniform Mandatory

Disposition Of Detainers Act ("UMDD"), V.A.M.S. 217.490, and the

Interstate Agreement On Detainers ("IAD"), A.C.A. §16-95-101, were

violated by virtue of a detainer placed against him while he was

incarcerated in the Missouri Department of Corrections. 

The gravamen of O'Neil's Complaint is his allegation that

although he complied with the provisions of the IAD, the detainer

Case 3:06-cv-03055-JLH Document 17 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

and the underlying indictment, information or criminal complaint

against him were not dismissed. As a result, he contends that he

was ineligible for work release during the last six months of his

incarceration in Missouri.

The relief sought is dismissal of the charge upon which the

detainer was based, and payment of "all cost to the Writ Of

Mandamus and any further cost inqured [sic] by any Court or agency

related to this cause, and whatever this court deems just and

proper in the best interest of justice."

2. After plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status,

the Magistrate Judge directed service of the Complaint upon

defendant, Gordon Webb, at the Boone County Prosecuting Attorney's

Office. Webb was served on March 16, 2007.

3. After Webb was served, a Motion To Dismiss was filed on

behalf of the "State of Arkansas and Prosecuting Attorney for

Boone County." This Motion pointed out that Webb is a state

official, rather than a county official, and that under 28 U.S.C.

§1361, a petition for a writ of mandamus will not lie as against

a state official. The movants thus prayed for dismissal for lack

of jurisdiction.

The movants also argued that, pursuant to the Interstate

Agreement on Detainers, A.C.A. §16-95-101, the remedies sought by

plaintiff must be obtained, if at all, from the State courts of

either Arkansas or Missouri.

Case 3:06-cv-03055-JLH Document 17 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

4. The Magistrate Judge reported that the movants were

correct in their interpretation of §1361, but that plaintiff

sought relief under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, which

may form the basis of a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §1983,

citing Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433 (1981). He thus recommended

that the Motion To Dismiss be denied.

5. Movants lodged Objections to the Report And

Recommendation Of The Magistrate Judge, in which they raise the

following issues, which they contend must be resolved in their

favor and which require their dismissal:

(a) There is no authority for the federal courts to issue a

writ of mandamus against state officials under 28 U.S.C.

§1361.

(b) The IAD does not create a federal right enforceable

under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

(c) This Court should abstain in the interests of federalism

from deciding the issues presented.

(d) A habeas corpus proceeding is not cognizable under §1983

until the prisoner has obtained a favorable result on

his claim in other proceedings.

(e) O'Neil's request for injunctive relief is moot because

the detainer was removed on September 20, 2006, upon the

request of Arkansas authorities.

6. The documentary submissions of the parties make it

Case 3:06-cv-03055-JLH Document 17 Filed 07/30/07 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

unnecessary to address any of the contentions except the last,

inasmuch as they demonstrate that O'Neil has already obtained the

injunctive relief he sought by his Writ Of Mandamus. These

documents, some of which were submitted by plaintiff and some by

defendants, are not challenged by any party. They indicate that

on 12/02/05, O'Neil (who was then incarcerated at Ozark

Correctional Center, in Fordland Missouri) received a packet

containing various forms used in handling detainers under the IAD,

related to "Warrant No. 04-02596."

O'Neil signed the necessary documents requesting "final

disposition" of Warrant 04-02596 on 12/02/05.

On 12/07/05, the Warden at Ozark Correctional Center signed

IAD documents offering to deliver temporary custody of O'Neil to

Boone County, Arkansas, for disposition of "Warrant No.

05CR1396." One of the forms signed by the Warden contained the

request that "[i]f you do not intend to bring the offender to

trial, will you please inform us as soon as possible?"

On June 17, 2006, nothing having happened with reference to

the foregoing detainer matter, O'Neil mailed to the Circuit Court

of Boone County, Arkansas, a document entitled "Writ Of

Prohibition." In this document he prayed for dismissal with

prejudice of the "untried indictment, information and warrants"

pursuant to the IAD. 

The Boone County Circuit Clerk could not locate the warrant,

Case 3:06-cv-03055-JLH Document 17 Filed 07/30/07 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

but sent O'Neil's Writ Of Prohibition to the Boone County

Prosecutor's Office, and so notified O'Neil, stating that the

Prosecutor's Office handled "all detainers." 

On August 2, 2006, the Boone County Circuit Clerk again wrote

O'Neil, advising him that she had located "the warrant that was

issued on April 6, 2005," and again noting that "detainers are

handled through the prosecutor's office."

On August 3, 2006, O'Neil wrote the Boone County Prosecutor's

Office, to the attention of Gordon Webb, reciting the foregoing

series of events, and requesting that the "untried indictment,

information, or complaint" be dismissed with prejudice at the

"earliest available opportunity as this detainer is hindering my

work release, classification, and possibly my release date of

September 22, 2006."

On September 15, 2006, the Boone County Victim Witness

Coordinator at the Boone County Prosecutor's Office notified Ozark

Correctional Center that it had asked the Harrison Police

Department to "pull" the warrant for O'Neil, and that it would

"not be coming to pick him up."

On September 20, 2006, the Missouri Department of Corrections

notified the Boone County Clerk of Court that it was "withdrawing

the detainer we held in your favor . . . . due to the fact there

was not enough evidence to prosecute him on." The letter noted

that O'Neil had been released on probation on September 19, 2006.

Case 3:06-cv-03055-JLH Document 17 Filed 07/30/07 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
-6-

As can be seen from the documents, the warrant O'Neil

challenges has been "pulled" and the detainer "withdrawn," and the

injunctive relief O'Neil seeks is moot. 

7. The only remaining aspect of O'Neil's claim is his

prayer for costs. Ordinarily a prisoner granted in forma pauperis

status would be required to pay the filing fee in installments.

However, in this case the Court did not order such payment.

Service of process was made by the Marshal's Service at no cost to

O'Neil. For these reasons, O'Neil has not incurred any costs in

this action.

8. There being no relief sought which has not already been

obtained, the Court is persuaded that the Report And

Recommendation Of The Magistrate Judge should not be adopted, and

that this case should be dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report And Recommendation Of

The Magistrate Judge is not adopted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03055-JLH Document 17 Filed 07/30/07 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>