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)

Download PDF
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  

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?