Madden v. Arkansas, State of

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Lee Madden, be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED AS MOOT; Objections to R&R due 10/27/09. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 10/13/09. (vjt)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION L E E MADDEN, JR. A D C #136534 v. CASE NO.: 5:09CV00310-SWW-BD P E T IT IO N E R L A R R Y NORRIS, Director, A r k a n s a s Department of Correction R E C O M M E N D E D DISPOSITION I. P r o c e d u r e for Filing Objections: RESPONDENT T h e following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District J u d g e Susan Webber Wright. Any party may file written objections to this re c o m m e n d a tio n . Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal b a s is for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that f in d in g and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your o b je c tio n s must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later th a n eleven (11) days from the date you receive the Recommended Disposition. A copy w ill be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in w a iv e r of the right to appeal questions of fact. M a il your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to: C le rk , United States District Court E a s te rn District of Arkansas 6 0 0 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 L ittle Rock, AR 72201-3325 1 For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends that the District Court dismiss P e titio n e r's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#2) without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 o f the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, as an unauthorized second or successive p e titio n . II. B ackground O n July 10, 2006, Petitioner Lee Madden, Jr. entered a plea of guilty in Desha C o u n ty Circuit Court to charges of aggravated robbery, theft of property valued at $2,500 o r more, and possession of a firearm by certain persons. In a judgment and commitment o rd e r filed July 17, 2006, the Circuit Court sentenced Petitioner to serve three hundred m o n th s on the aggravated robbery charge and to two-hundred-forty months on the theft of p ro p e rty and firearms charges, with all of the sentences to run concurrently. (#2 at p.1) O n March 3, 2008, Petitioner moved for leave to proceed with a belated appeal in th e Arkansas Supreme Court. On April 10, 2008, the Court denied the motion on the g ro u n d s that it did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal because Petitioner's case did n o t fall within an exception to Ark. R. App. P. Crim. 1, which provides that there is no rig h t to a direct appeal after entering a guilty plea. Madden v. State, No. CR 08-272, 2 0 0 8 WL 963666, at *1 (Ark. April 10, 2008). On March 6, 2008, Petitioner brought a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U .S .C . 2254. Madden v. Jackson, No. 5:08CV00059 (E.D. Ark. June 11, 2008). Petitioner raised several claims in his petition including a claim that he should be 2 permitted to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea because he lacked "legal knowledge a n d education" when he pleaded guilty to all of the charges. In his Petition, he a c k n o w le d g e d that he had not raised any of these claims with the trial court by filing a tim e ly petition under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, but he blamed the failure on a "lack of e d u c a tio n and legal knowledge." Further, Petitioner acknowledged that his habeas petition was not timely. The C o u rt granted the Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition because the claims were b a rre d by the statute of limitations. In his current Petition (#2), Petitioner claims: (1) he was "mentally retarded" w h e n he pleaded guilty; (2) he was slapped unconscious at the Varner Unit; (3) he " e x p e rie n c e d hate crime" while at the Varner Unit; and (4) he is innocent. III. S e c o n d or Successive Petition T itle 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(1) requires dismissal of any 2254 claims that were p re s e n te d in a prior habeas petition. A petitioner attempting to bring a "second or s u c c e s s iv e " federal habeas petition challenging a state-court conviction must first "move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider th e application." 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A). A panel of the court of appeals may authorize the filing of a successive petition " o n ly if it presents a claim not previously raised that satisfies one of the two grounds a rtic u la te d in 2244(b)(2)." Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153, 127 S.Ct. 793, 796 3 (2007). A 2254 claim presented in a second or successive petition, which was not p re s e n te d in a prior petition, must be dismissed unless: (A) the applicant shows that the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, m a d e retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was p re v io u s ly unavailable; or (B) (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered p re v io u s ly through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the e v id e n c e as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and c o n v in c in g evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable f a c tf in d e r would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 2 8 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2). The district court is without jurisdiction to consider a successive p e titio n until authorized by the court of appeals. Burton, 549 U.S. at 153. Petitioner's claims that he was slapped and was the victim of a "hate crime" while a t the Arkansas Department of Correction's Varner Unit are claims regarding his c o n d itio n s of confinement and are not cognizable in a habeas corpus action. See 28 U .S .C . 2254. Petitioner's claim that he was mentally retarded when he pleaded guilty to the c h a rg e s challenges the same judgment he challenged in his first habeas petition and is s im ila r to his claim that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because he lacked " le g a l knowledge and education" sufficient to enter a plea. Petitioner's claim that he is in n o c e n t challenges the same judgment he challenged in his first habeas petition, but this a p p e a rs to be a new claim. 4 Petitioner has not sought authorization from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to b rin g either claim in a successive petition. Accordingly, this petition requires prior a u th o riz a tio n by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals under 2244(b). The Court is w ith o u t jurisdiction to consider the claims until the Eighth Circuit grants Petitioner leave to proceed. See Burton v. Stewart, 127 S.Ct. at 796 (concluding a habeas application f ile d after a previously adjudicated application was a second or successive application, w h ic h had not been authorized by the appropriate court of appeals, and thus the district c o u rt lacked jurisdiction to entertain it). IV . C o n c lu s io n T h e Court recommends that the District Court dismiss the Petition for Writ of H a b e a s Corpus (#2) without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 4 of the R u le s Governing Section 2254 Cases and deny the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma P a u p e r is (#1) as moot. D A T E D this 13th day of October, 2009. ____________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?