Williams v. Hobbs

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 18 and returning for further submissions and proceedings as needed on possible equitable tolling. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 9/8/11. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

PHILLIP D. WILLIAMS, ADC #115975

v.

PETITIONER

Case No. 5:11-cv-28-DPM

ARTIS RAY HOBBS, Director,

Arkansas Department of Correction

RESPONDENT

ORDER
The Court has considered Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe's proposed
findings and recommended disposition, Document No. 18, and Williams's
objection, Document No. 22, on de novo review. FED. R. Cry. P. 72(b)(3). The
Court appreciates, agrees with, and adopts Judge Volpe's limitations analysis
with one exception: in his objection, Williams has begun developing an
equitable tolling argument; this argument needs to be explored based on the
materials Williams submitted with his objection, other submissions, and
perhaps a non-merits evidentiary hearing if Judge Volpe concludes one is
needed. As the Magistrate Judge recognized, Document No. 18, at 6-7, here
Williams must climb a high hill, showing both extraordinary circumstances
and diligence to allow any federal court to consider on the merits what is an

otherwise untimely claim. Holland v. Florida, 130 5. Ct. 2549 (2010); U.S. v.
Martin, 408 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 2005). Whether Williams can climb that hill

will depend on what the fuller record on equitable tolling reveals.
Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, Document No. 18,
adopted in part, rejected in part, and returned for further submissions and
proceedings as needed on possible equitable tolling. FED. R. Cry. P. 72(b)(3).
50 Ordered.

-2­