Howard v. Norwood

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
CARLTON HOWARD 	PETITIONER
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-01023
DAVID NORWOOD 	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 Carlton Howard (“Howard”) on
March 24, 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
Howard’s claims in the instant Petition relate to him being held in custody in the Ouachita
County Jail in Camden, Arkansas. According to the state court docket in Ouachita County, Howard
is the defendant in two ongoing state court criminal cases.0F
1 In his Petition Howard states he is “still
waiting” for a judgment or conviction, and “awaiting for a plea still waiting on my public Defender.
Its like they trying to keep me in the dark about my case.” ECF No. 1, pp. 1-2.
Howard sets forth three grounds for his release: 1) violation of constitutional rights under
the Eighth Amendment; 2) “violation of isolation confinement”; and 3) “violation of civil rights”.
Id. at pp. 6-10. For relief in the instant Petition, Howard seeks to be “release from jail to fight my
case better by getting me a better lawyer cause at this point its like the only thing they want is jail
time.” Id. at p. 15.
1 The dockets in Howard’s state court cases are accessible through https://caseinfo.arcourts.gov. Howard’s case
numbers are 52CR-24-274 State v. Carlton Howard (Ouachita County Circuit Court); and 52CR-24-275 State v.
Carlton Howard (Ouachita County Circuit Court).
Case 1:25-cv-01023-SOH Document 5 Filed 04/17/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
II. 	DISCUSSION
Howard 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.” Howard is awaiting trial, there are clearly state
remedies available to him. Under the clear terms of Subsection A, this Petition cannot be
considered until Howard 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 Howard 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-01023-SOH Document 5 Filed 04/17/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>