Watkins v. Payne

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
JEFFREY LYNN WATKINS 	PETITIONER
v. 	No. 6:24-cv-06031
DEXTER PAYNE, Director, Arkansas
Division of Correction 	RESPONDENT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is an Amended Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus by a Person in State Custody. ECF No. 8. The Petition was filed by Jeffrey Lynn Watkins
(“Watkins”) on March 14, 2024, in the Eastern District of Arkansas and transferred to this Court
the following day.1 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,2 on March 14,
2023, Watkins was convicted, pursuant to a guilty plea, under Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-14-
125(b)(1) for Second Degree Sexual Assault and under Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-26-202(c)
for Incest in Madison County Circuit Court. He was sentenced that same day to 168 months plus
an additional 72 months of suspended imposition sentence for the sexual assault charge and 12
months plus a suspended imposition sentence of 108 months for the incest charge.3 Watkins did
1 Watkins filed his original Petition on January 19, 2024, in the Eastern District of Arkansas. ECF No. 1. On January
25, 2024, Magistrate Judge Bencia B. Moore ordered Watkins to fill out the court approved 2254 Petition and either
pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2.
2 See Stahl v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 327 F.3d 697, 700 (8 th 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).
3 https://caseinfo.arcourts.gov/opad/case/44CR-21-394 (accessed April 9, 2024).
Case 6:24-cv-06031-SOH Document 17 Filed 04/09/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
not file a direct appeal or Rule 37.1 petition seeking post-conviction relief in state court.4 He is
currently serving his sentence in the Arkansas Department of Corrections, Ouachita River Unit in
Malvern, Arkansas.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Under the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), Watkin’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
demonstration of any absence of available State corrective process or other circumstances which
would render the process ineffective to protect Watkins’s rights.
Watkins did not seek direct review from the Arkansas Appellate courts, nor did he seek
post-conviction relief from Arkansas state courts. Clearly, Watkins has not exhausted his available
state remedies. Accordingly, the § 2254 Petition should be dismissed as premature. Once Watkins
has exhausted his state court remedies, he may refile his habeas Petition in federal court.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(ECF No. 8) be DISMISSED 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
4 Watkins appears to be seeking post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 37.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal
Procedure in the instant petition. He states: “Im [sic] writing you this letter to try to appeal a conviction under Rule
37 for ineffective assistance of council and loyalty to client.” ECF No. 1, p.1. Such a petition must be filed in the
state court where the conviction and sentence were originally imposed. See Ark.R.Crim.Proc 37.1(a).
Case 6:24-cv-06031-SOH Document 17 Filed 04/09/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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 9th day of April 2024.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:24-cv-06031-SOH Document 17 Filed 04/09/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>