Dansby v. State of Arkansas

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JOSEPH ALEXANDER DANSBY, SR. 	PETITIONER
v. 	Case No. 4:24-cv-04032-SOH-BAB
STATE OF ARKANSAS 	RESPONDENT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
Person in State Custody.1 ECF No. 1. This Petition was filed by Joseph Alexander Dansby, Sr.
(“Dansby”) on April 19, 2024. ECF No. 1. No response has been filed and no service has been
ordered. This Petition has been referred to the undersigned and is now ripe for consideration.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Dansby’s claims in the instant Petition relate to him being held in custody in Little River
County Arkansas. According to the state court docket in Little River County, Dansby is the
defendant in an ongoing state court criminal case. The docket in this case reveals the case is set
for jury trial in June of 2024.2 According to his Petition Dansby is a pretrial “detainee (waiting for
trial on criminal charges)” in Case No: 41CR-2433. ECF No. 1, p. 1. He states he is “Being charged
for ‘criminal mischief’ for breaking a T.V. and a Tablet.” Id. at p. 2. Dansby goes on to say he
filed a grievance form with “Gina Butler, Little River Detention Center … #34701192 (Grievance)
…Result: To no avail … Issues raised: That I am being twice put in jeopardy.” Id.
Dansby sets forth the following grounds for relief in the Petition:
1 A review of the Petition shows Dansby is asking to be released from the Little River County Detention Center and
have his state charges dismissed. Accordingly, the Court considers the Petition as one filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254.
2 The docket in Dansby’s state court case is accessible through https://caseinfo.arcourts.gov. Dansby’s case number
is 41CR-24-33: State v. Joseph Alexander Dansby (Little River County Circuit).
Case 4:24-cv-04032-JTS Document 7 Filed 05/23/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
GROUND ONE: Being twice put in Jeopardy … I have already been held in
Solitary confinement for almost two months without a disciplinary preceeding for
the matter …
GROUND TWO: No warrant for arrest … I was released from Hempstead County
on March 25th 2024, but was picked up by Little River County without a warrant
for arrest …
GROUND THREE: Excessive Bail … My Bail is $25,000.00 for breaking a T.V.
and a Tablet that is estimated to be worth approximately $2,900.00 …
GROUND FOUR: Illegal Search and Seizure … Little River Detention Center Staff illegally
seized my person after being released from Hempstead County.
ECF No. 1, pp. 6-7. For relief in the instant Petition, Dansby seeks to have “dismissal of my charge”. Id.
at p. 7.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Dansby filed this Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Section 2254 requires that a
petitioner be “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court . . .” Here, Petitioner by his own
pleading admits he is not yet in custody pursuant to any state court judgment. Further, under the
plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), this 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.” Under the clear terms of Subsection A, this
Petition cannot be considered by this Court until Dansby has exhausted his state court remedies.
Additionally, pursuant to Subsection B, there has been no demonstration or claim that there are no
state court processes which could be used by Dansby to obtain relief for the claims he makes here.
In fact, Dansby can and must afford himself of the state criminal justice system to raise all the
claims he attempts to raise here.
Case 4:24-cv-04032-JTS Document 7 Filed 05/23/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
III. CONCLUSION
Because the Petition here contains unexhausted claims, it is not ripe for consideration by
this Court. Accordingly, it is recommended this Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be DENIED
without prejudice.
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 23rd day of May 2024.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:24-cv-04032-JTS Document 7 Filed 05/23/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>