1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TEXARKANA DIVISION

BBOBBY KIRKENDOLL §

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23cv142

WARDEN, FCI-TEXARKANA §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Petitioner Bobby Kirkendoll, an inmate currently confined in the Federal Correctional 

Institution at Texarkana, filed this application for the writ of habeas corpusstating that he isseeking 

“statutory interpretation” of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. The petition wasreferred to the 

undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and Local 

Rule CV-72 of the Local Rules of Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

I. Background

Petitioner says that he was involved in state criminal proceedings in Louisiana when the 

federal governmentsubmitted an arrest warrant on July 24, 2019, along with a writ of habeas corpus 

ad prosequendum. Because the federal government is the gaining state, Petitioner asserts that the 

government is bound by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD).

Petitioner states that he never requested final disposition, and so the IAD creates an 

agreement by three parties - the gaining entity, the losing entity, and the accused. Under the IAD, 

Petitioner contends that because he had ongoing criminal proceedings with the State of Louisiana, 

the federal government could not convict him of federal offenses before the state concluded or 

dismissed its proceedings against him. Consequently, Petitioner asserts that the State of Louisiana, 

being the sending state, lacked authority to transfer jurisdiction to the federal government, and the 

federal government lacked authority to begin criminal proceedings against him.

Case 5:23-cv-00142-RWS-JBB Document 3 Filed 02/26/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 12
2

II. Discussion

The Interstate Agreement on Detainers is an agreement between forty-eight States, the 

Federal Government, and the District of Columbia which creates uniform procedures for lodging 

and executing a detainer. Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146, 148 (2001). However, Louisiana is 

one of the two states which is not a party to the IAD. Spratt v. Vannoy, civil action no. 19-9115, 

2021 WL 2722603 (E.D.La., June 4, 2021) (citing Birdwell v. Skeen, 983 F.2d 1332, 1335 (5th Cir. 

1993)). As a result, the provisions of the IAD do not apply to the United States in its dealingswith 

Louisiana. U.S. v. Williams, crim. no. 05-30014-01, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106868, 2008 WL 

5532099 (W.D.La., December 4, 2008), Report adopted at 2009 WL 750273 (W.D.La.,January 20, 

2009) (citing Robinson v. United States, 580 F.2d 783, 784 (5th Cir. 1978)); Dickerson v. State of 

Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 222 n.1 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Petitioner’s petition alleges aviolation 

of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers involving the State of Louisiana, which is not a party to 

the Agreement, his claims are withoutmerit. Williams, 2008 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 106868 at *14;Nealy

v. Vasquez, civil action no. 15-0004, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 87471 (W.D.La., April 2, 2015), Report 

adopted at 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88026, 2015 WL 4092877 (W.D.La., July 6, 2015) (because 

Louisiana has not adopted the IAD, the habeas petitioner could not assert a statutory violation).

RECOMMENDATION

It is accordingly recommended that the above-styled application forthe writ of habeas corpus 

be dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendationsshall be served on all parties in 

the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and 

recommendationsmustfile specificwritten objectionswithin 14 days after being served with a copy.

In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation 

to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate 

Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed determination is

Case 5:23-cv-00142-RWS-JBB Document 3 Filed 02/26/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 13
3

found. An objection which merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

Magistrate Judge is not specific, and the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or 

general objections. See Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 

1987).

Failure to file specific written objections will bar the objecting party from appealing the 

factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which are accepted and adopted by 

the district court except upon grounds of plain error. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 

(5th Cir. 2017).

.

____________________________________

J. Boone Baxter

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SIGNED this the 26th day of February, 2024.

Case 5:23-cv-00142-RWS-JBB Document 3 Filed 02/26/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 14