Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00849/USCOURTS-ared-4_19-cv-00849-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

OTIS D. GIPSON PETITIONER 

ADC #080856 

v. Case No. 4:19-CV-00849-BRW-JTK 

DEXTER PAYNE, Director,

Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSTION 

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District 

Court Judge Billy Roy Wilson. Any party may serve and file written objections to this 

recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal 

basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that 

finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your 

objections must be received in the office of the United States District Clerk no later than 

fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be 

furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of 

the right to appeal questions of fact. 

 If you are objecting to the recommendation and desire to submit new, different, or 

additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the United States District 

Judge, you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include a 

“Statement of Necessity” that sets forth the following: 

Case 4:19-cv-00849-BRW Document 12 Filed 03/23/20 Page 1 of 7
2

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate. 

 2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the requested hearing before the United 

States District Judge was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate 

Judge.

 3. An offer of proof setting forth the details of any testimony or other evidence 

(including copies of any documents) desired to be introduced at the requested 

hearing before the United States District Judge.

From this submission, the United States District Judge will determine the necessity for an 

additional evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District 

Judge.

 Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to: 

 Clerk, United States District Court 

 Eastern District of Arkansas 

 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A 149 

 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 

Introduction

Pending before the Court is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (DE # 2) filed 

by Petitioner, Otis D. Gipson, an inmate in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). 

For the reasons outlined below, the undersigned recommends the petition be denied and 

the case dismissed with prejudice. 

 Petitioner was found guilty of two counts of rape by a Pulaski County Circuit Court 

jury. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to concurrent 35-year terms in the Arkansas 

Department of Correction. Petitioner directly appealed his convictions to the Arkansas 

Court of Appeals. On appeal, he argued (1) the trial court erred in prohibiting his counsel 

from questioning a witness about the presence of another man’s semen on one of the 

Case 4:19-cv-00849-BRW Document 12 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 7
3

victim’s bed sheets and (2) the circuit court erred in allowing evidence of Petitioner’s prior 

felonies in the sentencing phase. Gipson v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 651. His convictions 

were upheld by the court of appeals on November 6, 2013. Id. The mandate was issued 

on November 26, 2013. (DE # 11-6 p. 4) 

 On November 24, 2015, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief under 

Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 37 in Pulaski County Circuit Court. (DE # 11-7) The 

circuit court dismissed the petition on June 22, 2016, holding that the petition was untimely 

because it was filed more than sixty (60) days after the return of the mandate; therefore, it 

lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition. (DE # 11-8) Petitioner did not 

appeal the circuit court’s denial of his Rule 37 petition.

 Subsequently, Petitioner filed a state habeas petition on January 22, 2018, seeking 

DNA testing. (DE # 11-9 pp. 6-15) The Pulaski County Circuit Court dismissed the 

petition on September 11, 2018. (DE #11-12) Petitioner filed a Motion for 

Reconsideration on September 19, 2018, and the circuit court entered an order on October 

11, 2018, denying the motion. (DE #11-15) On November 7, 2018, Petitioner filed a 

Notice of Appeal. (DE # 11-16) The Arkansas Supreme Court held on October 31, 2019, 

that Petitioner’s state habeas petition was untimely and because he failed to rebut the 

presumption of untimeliness, the court affirmed the dismissal of the petition. (DE # 11-

19) 

Petitioner filed his federal writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on 

November 29, 2019. (DE # 2) Respondent filed a Response to the petition on February 

Case 4:19-cv-00849-BRW Document 12 Filed 03/23/20 Page 3 of 7
4

19, 2020. (DE # 11) Respondent denies he is entitled to habeas corpus relief, submitting 

the claim is time-barred and procedurally defaulted. Id.

Discussion

1. Statute of Limitations 

 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) establishes a 

one-year time limitation for a state prisoner to file a federal habeas corpus petition. Jimenez

v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113, 114 (2009). The year runs from the latest of four specified 

dates.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The date relevant here is “‘the date on which 

the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time 

for seeking such review.’” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)). Arkansas Supreme Court 

Rule 2-4(a) states that the time for seeking discretionary review expires eighteen (18) days 

after the Arkansas Court of Appeals issues its decision. Here, the Arkansas Court of 

Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s convictions on November 6, 2013; therefore, he had until 

Monday, November 26, 2013, to seek review by the Arkansas Supreme Court.1

 From there, 

Petitioner was required to file his federal habeas petition by November 26, 2014. 

Petitioner, however did not file the current petition until November 29, 2019, nearly five 

(5) years after the filing date had passed. Therefore, the federal petition for writ of habeas 

corpus is time barred unless statutory or equitable tolling applies. 

 The habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), provides for tolling while a “properly 

filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the 

1

 Because the eighteenth day fell on Sunday, November 25, 2013, the time for filing such action is extended to the 

next business day. See Ark. R. App. P. Crim. 17. 

Case 4:19-cv-00849-BRW Document 12 Filed 03/23/20 Page 4 of 7
5

pertinent judgment or claim is pending,” however, section 2244(d)(2) does not offer any 

relief to Petitioner. The AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations had already run when the 

Petitioner filed his Rule 37 petition on November 24, 2015; therefore, the filing did not toll 

the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).

 There is also no argument or indication that any of the statutory exceptions to the 

one-year period of limitation apply. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D) (explaining that the 

limitations period will be tolled in situations where the state impeded relief, new 

constitutional rights were created by the Supreme Court, or newly discovered facts 

underpin the claim). Nor is there any reason to believe that equitable tolling would be 

appropriate. In Pace v. DiGuglielmo, the United States Supreme Court held that a 

petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he can prove: (1) that he has been pursuing 

his rights diligently and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. 

544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). Petitioner brought the current action nearly five (5) years after 

the limitations period had expired, and Petitioner has not presented any extraordinary 

circumstances beyond his control that made it impossible to file his petition on time.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner’s petition is time-barred.

2. Procedural Default 

 Petitioner’s claims are also procedurally defaulted. A habeas petitioner who cannot 

present his federal claims in state court due to untimeliness or some other state procedural 

hurdle meets the technical requirements for exhaustion because there are no longer any 

state remedies that are available to him. Grass v. Reitz, 643 F.3d 579, 584 (8th Cir. 2011) 

(citing Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 732 (1986)). AHowever, that petitioner=s

Case 4:19-cv-00849-BRW Document 12 Filed 03/23/20 Page 5 of 7
6

procedural default may constitute an >independent and adequate state ground= barring 

federal habeas relief absent a showing of either cause and prejudice or actual innocence.@

Id. (internal citations omitted). A[W]e ask not only whether a prisoner has exhausted his 

state remedies, but also whether he has properly exhausted those remedies, i.e., whether he 

has fairly presented his claims to the state courts.@ O=Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 

848 (1999). To meet this fair presentation requirement, Astate prisoners must give the state 

courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete 

round of the State=s established appellate review process.@ Id. at 845. AA failure to exhaust 

remedies properly in accordance with state procedure results in procedural default of the 

prisoner=s claims.@ Welch v. Lund, 616 F.3d 756, 758 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing O=Sullivan,

526 U.S. at 848). Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment claims in his Rule 37 petition were 

dismissed as untimely, and his due process claim was abandoned on appeal; thus, Petitioner 

no longer has any state remedies available and his claims are procedurally defaulted. 

Certificate of Appealability 

When entering a final order adverse to the Petitioner, the Court must issue or deny 

a certificate of appealability. Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the 

United States District Court. The Court can issue a certificate of appealability only if 

Petitioner has made a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). In this case, Petitioner has not provided a basis for issuing a 

certificate of appealability.

Case 4:19-cv-00849-BRW Document 12 Filed 03/23/20 Page 6 of 7
7

Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMENDED the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (DE 

# 2), be denied and this habeas case be dismissed, with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER 

RECOMMENDED a certificate of appealability be denied pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

SO ORDERED THIS 23rd day of March, 2020. 

__________________________________________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:19-cv-00849-BRW Document 12 Filed 03/23/20 Page 7 of 7