Hayes v. Kelley, No. 5:2016cv00162 - Document 46 (E.D. Ark. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 35 the proposed findings and recommendations; dismissing without prejudice 1 Hayes's writ of habeas corpus for failure to exhaust state court remedies; and denying as moot 21 31 32 33 34 35 42 44 45 the remainder of Hayes's outstanding motions. A certificate of appealability will not be granted because Hayes has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. An in forma pauperis appeal, therefore, would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 10/25/2016. (kdr)

Download PDF
Hayes v. Kelley Doc. 46 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION STEVEN C. HAYES v. PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00162 BSM WENDY KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction DEFENDANT ORDER The proposed findings and recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney [Doc. No. 35] have been received, along with the objections thereto submitted by plaintiff Steven Hayes [Doc. Nos. 37, 39, 40, 43]. After de novo review of the record, the proposed findings and recommendations are adopted in part and rejected in part. Hayes’s writ of habeas corpus [Doc. No. 1] is dismissed for his failure to exhaust state court remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, Hayes’s petition is dismissed without prejudice, the relief sought is denied, and the remainder of Hayes’s outstanding motions are denied as moot [Doc. Nos. 21, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 42, 44, 45]. A certificate of appealability will not be granted because Hayes has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). An in forma pauperis appeal, therefore, would not be taken in good faith. Dockets.Justia.com See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of October 2016. ________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.