King v. Ashley County Detention Center

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
ALVIN WESLEY KING 	PETITIONER
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-01025
ASHLEY COUNTY DETENTION CENTER 	RESPONDENT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
Person in State Custody. ECF No. 1. This Petition was filed by Alvin Wesley King (“King”) on
March 27, 2025. 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
King’s claims in the instant Petition relate to him being held in custody in Ashley County
Arkansas. According to the state court docket in Ashley County, King is the defendant in three
ongoing state court criminal cases.0F
1 The dockets and King’s Petition reveal two of the cases are
set for trial on May 7-9, 2025, and the other case was set for a pretrial hearing on April 14, 2025.
King sets forth the following grounds for relief: 1) “legal misrepresentation: my court
appointed legal counsel has been incompetent, unsatisfactory and unacceptable”; 2) “violation of
6 th 	Amendment 	to 	the 	United 	States 	Constitution, 	Right 	to 	a 	Fair 	Trial”; 	3)
“Trespass/Intimidation”; 4) “Discrimination/Deliberate Indifference”; 5) “Forgery/Falsification of
Legal Court Documents”; and 6) “Violated my Right to Due Process of Law”. ECF No. 1, pp. 7-
31.
1 The dockets in King’s state court cases are accessible through https://caseinfo.arcourts.gov. King’s case numbers
are 02CR-23-25 State v. Alvin Wesley King (Ashley County Circuit); 02CR-24-154 State v. Alvin Wesley King
(Ashley County Circuit); and 02CR-24-205 State v. Alvin Wesley King (Ashley County Circuit).
Case 1:25-cv-01025-SOH Document 6 Filed 04/17/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
II. 	DISCUSSION
King 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.” King is awaiting trial. 	There are clearly state
processes yet to be concluded regarding the cases King complains about. 	Under the terms of
Subsection A, this Petition cannot be considered until King 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 King to obtain relief for the claims he makes here.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, because such a Petition is not ripe for consideration by this Court, 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 (8 th Cir. 1990).
DATED this 17th day of April 2025.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01025-SOH Document 6 Filed 04/17/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>