Benson v. Hobbs

Filing 23

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING 18 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; dismissing with prejudice Mr. Benson's 2 petition; denying any pending motions as moot; and declining to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 03/31/2015. (rhm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
OTHA BENSON
ADC # 101648
v.

PETITIONER
Case No. 5:14-cv-00050 KGB/JJV

RAY HOBBS, Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction

RESPONDENT
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted
by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 19) and Petitioner Otha Benson’s
objections (Dkt. No. 19). After carefully considering the objections and making a de novo
review of the record in this case, the Court approves and adopts in their entirety the Proposed
Findings and Recommended Disposition as this Court’s findings in all respects.
The Court writes separately to address Mr. Benson’s argument that the United States
Supreme Court’s decisions in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler,
133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013), require an equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for Mr. Benson to
file a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The Court rejects Mr.

Benson’s argument. Nothing in the holdings in either case provides a basis for excusing a
prisoner’s compliance with the one-year statute of limitations for filing a § 2254 habeas action in
federal court. See Arthur v. Thomas, 739 F.3d 611, 628–31 (11th Cir.2014) (holding that “the
reasoning of the Martinez rule does not apply to ... [the one-year] limitations period in § 2254
cases or any potential tolling of that period”), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 106 (2014); see also
Woodruff v. Hobbs, No. 5:13-CV-00317-KGB, 2014 WL 7399197, at *4 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 22,
2014) reconsideration denied, No. 5:13-CV-00317-KGB, 2014 WL 7399200 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 10,

2014).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2554 Cases in
the United States District Court, the Court must determine whether to issue a certificate of
appealability in the final order. In § 2254 cases, a certificate of appealability may issue only if
the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1)-(2). The Court finds no issue on which Mr. Benson has made a substantial showing
of a denial of a constitutional right. Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of
appealability.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses with prejudice Mr. Benson’s petition (Dkt. No. 2). The
Court denies the requested relief and denies as moot any pending motions.
SO ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2015.

_______________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge

2