Lewis v. State of Arkansas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
TRAVIS CAIN LEWIS 	PETITIONER
v. 	Case No. 4:24-cr-4022
DEXTER PAYNE, Director of the
Arkansas Division of Correction 	RESPONDENT
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by the Honorable Barry A.
Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 10. Judge
Bryant recommends that the Court deny and dismiss without prejudice Travis Cain Lewis’s
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 	ECF No. 1. 	Respondent has
filed an objection, arguing that the dismissal should be with prejudice because Lewis’s claims are
procedurally defaulted. Lewis has not filed objections, but he did file a motion to dismiss his case
(ECF No. 12), in which he acknowledges that he has not exhausted all available state court
remedies. ECF No. 12.
Upon review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) in part.
The Court finds that Lewis’s claims should be dismissed but agrees with Respondent that the
claims should be dismissed with prejudice, because they are procedurally defaulted. See Welch v.
Lund, 616 F.3d 756, 760 (8th Cir. 2010) (failure to properly exhaust state court remedies results
in procedural default if state procedural rules preclude any further attempts at exhaustion).
Accordingly, Lewis’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED and
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
When entering a final order adverse to a habeas corpus petitioner, the Court must issue or
Case 4:24-cv-04022-SOH Document 14 Filed 03/25/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
deny a certificate of appealability. See Rule 11, Rules Governing § 2255 Cases. A certificate of
appealability may issue only if a petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). To make such a showing, “[t]he petitioner must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In this case, the Court
finds no issue on which Lewis has made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.
Accordingly, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 25th day of March, 2025.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-04022-SOH Document 14 Filed 03/25/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>