Marts v. Hobbs

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING 5 Report and Recommendations, with the exception that dismissal of Mr. Marts petition is WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and denying 8 the Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on September 19, 2013. (sh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
BILLY RICHARD MARTS, II
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 2:13-CV-02074

LARRY NORRIS, Director
Arkansas Department of Corrections

DEFENDANT
ORDER

The Court has received proposed findings and recommendations (Doc. 5) from Chief United
States Magistrate Judge James R. Marschewski. The Court has conducted a careful review of the
findings and recommendations and of the timely objections filed by Plaintiff. After reviewing the
record de novo as to Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds the Magistrate’s reasoning to be sound
and further finds that Plaintiff’s objections offer neither law nor fact requiring departure from the
Magistrates’ findings.
The Magistrate determined that Mr. Marts’s claims were barred as they constituted a second
or successive application for habeas for which Mr. Marts had not obtained authority to file pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Mr. Marts objects to the Magistrate’s finding that his Rule 60(b)(6)
motion was a second or successive habeas petition. However, a Rule 60(b) motion that seeks to
assert one or more substantive claims is in substance a successive habeas petition, and must be
treated accordingly. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-32 (2005).
The Court therefore concludes that the findings and recommendations should be, and hereby
are, approved and adopted as this Court’s findings with one exception. The Court finds that the
dismissal of Mr. Marts’s petition should be without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the report and recommendation (Doc. 5) is ADOPTED,
with the exception that dismissal of Mr. Marts’s petition is without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Mr. Marts’s petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Marts’s motion (Doc. 8) to amend his petition is
DENIED, as an amended petition would also be subject to dismissal for the same reason that Mr.
Marts has not obtained authority to file it.
Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of September, 2013.

s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-