Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_05-cv-00291/USCOURTS-ared-5_05-cv-00291-0/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)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

MICHAEL JAMES MEDLOCK PETITIONER

vs. Civil Case No. 5:05CV00291 HLJ

LARRY NORRIS, Director, 

Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United

States District Court Judge J. Leon Holmes. 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 Court Clerk

no later than eleven (11) 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 also desire to

submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a

hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at

Case 5:05-cv-00291-JLH Document 9 Filed 01/26/06 Page 1 of 7
2

the same time that you file your written objections, include the

following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is

inadequate.

2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before

the District Judge (if such a hearing is granted)

was not offered at the hearing before the

Magistrate Judge. 

3. The detail of any testimony desired to be

introduced at the hearing before the District Judge

in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or

the original, of any documentary or other nontestimonial evidence desired to be introduced at

the hearing before the District Judge.

From this submission, the 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 402

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

DISPOSITION

Now before the court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Michael James Medlock, an inmate of the

Arkansas Department of Correction. Petitioner was convicted by a

jury on September 6, 2001, of aggravated robbery, and he received

a fifty-six year sentence of imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of

Appeals affirmed his conviction on November 13, 2002, (Respondent’s

Exhibit B) and entered its mandate on January 13, 2003

Case 5:05-cv-00291-JLH Document 9 Filed 01/26/06 Page 2 of 7
3

(Respondent’s Exhibit D). Petitioner filed a petition for postconviction relief under Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal

Procedure on March 7, 2003 (Respondent’s Exhibit E). The trial

court held a hearing on April 10, 2003, and ruled from the bench,

denying relief (Respondent’s Exhibit G). The court entered a

written order on May 6, 2003 (Respondent’s Exhibit F) and

Petitioner appealed. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the trial

court on September 30, 2004 (Respondent’s Exhibit H), and entered

its mandate on October 19, 2004 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 3, attached

to Reply filed on December 29, 2005). 

In the present petition, Petitioner raises the following

grounds for relief:

1. His conviction is not supported by sufficient

evidence;

2. The trial court erred in admitting evidence of a

previous conviction and

3. The trial court abused its discretion by admitting

evidence of the victim’s death and evidence that the

victim had a broken leg.

Respondent contends the petition should be dismissed as

untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), which provides as follows:

(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an

application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The

limitation period shall run from the latest of -

(A) the date on which the judgment became

final by the conclusion of direct review or

the expiration of the time for seeking such

review;

Case 5:05-cv-00291-JLH Document 9 Filed 01/26/06 Page 3 of 7
4

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing

an application created by State action in

violation of the Constitution or laws of the

United States is removed, if the applicant was

prevented from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right

asserted was initially recognized by the

Supreme Court, if the right has been newly

recognized by the Supreme Court and made

retroactively applicable to cases on

collateral review; or 

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of

the claim or claims presented could have been

discovered through the exercise of due

diligence. 

2. The time during which a properly filed application

for State post-conviction or other collateral review with

respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending

shall not be counted toward any period of limitation

under this subsection.

The triggering date, or the date on which the one-year time

limitation began to run in this case was the date Petitioner’s

conviction became final. A state court judgment becomes final at

the conclusion of direct review or upon expiration of the time for

filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States

Supreme Court, which is ninety days from the date the state court

files its decision. Smith v. Bowersox, 159 F.3d 345 (8th Cir.

1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1187 (1999); Rule 13(3) of the Rules

of the United States Supreme Court. The Arkansas Court of Appeals

filed its decision on direct review on November 13, 2002, and the

Case 5:05-cv-00291-JLH Document 9 Filed 01/26/06 Page 4 of 7
1 Petitioner did not request the Arkansas Supreme Court to

review the Court of Appeals’ decision. Respondent does not argue

here, as he has in other cases in this district, that his failure

to seek review extinguished Petitioner’s right to seek certiorari

and rendered the conviction final when the Arkansas Court of

Appeals issued its decision. Moreover, The District Judge

presiding in the present case recently held in Collier v. Norris,

No. 4:05CV515, that where there is no basis for seeking review in

the Arkansas Supreme Court, a decision by the Arkansas Court of

Appeals is a judgment from which a defendant may seek certiorari in

the Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. 1257(a) and Rule 13 of the Rules

of the Supreme Court of the United States. Thus, the conviction

does not become final for purposes of § 2244 until expiration of

the ninety days. This court assumes without deciding that

Petitioner here could petition for certiorari and that the

limitations period was tolled for this period of time.

2 The Eighth Circuit has not specifically decided whether the

post-conviction petition ceases to be “pending” when the appellate

court files its decision or when it files its mandate. Respondent

uses the date the decision was filed, September 30, 2004, but

offers no basis for using this date. 

3 The limitations period is not tolled for the 90-day period

in which a petitioner may seek certiorari from the state appellate

court’s denial of post-conviction relief. Snow v. Ault, 238 F.3d

5

ninety-day time period ended on February 11, 2003.1 The one-year

period of limitations began to run the next day, on February 12,

2006, and it ran for twenty-three days, until Petitioner filed his

Rule 37 petition on March 7, 2003. Under § 2244(d)(2), the

limitations period was tolled during the entire time the Rule 37

petition was pending. This included the time between the date the

circuit court filed its opinion denying relief and the date

Petitioner filed his notice of appeal. Peterson v. Gammon, 200

F.3d 1202 , 1205 (8th Cir. 2000). Even if the court does not start

the limitations period running again until the date the Arkansas

Supreme Court filed its mandate2 on October 19, 2004,3 the present

Case 5:05-cv-00291-JLH Document 9 Filed 01/26/06 Page 5 of 7
1033 (8th Cir. 2001).

4 The Court assumed without deciding that equitable tolling

applies to the statute of limitations in § 2244(d). 

6

petition is untimely because Petitioner did not file it until

October 19, 2005, twenty-three days past the one-year deadline. 

Petitioner states in his Reply that he attempted to contact

his post-conviction counsel to monitor the progress of his Rule 37

petition, but counsel would not reply to his inquiries. He

contacted the Arkansas Supreme Court’s Criminal Justice

Coordinator, who informed him on September 27, 2004, that his

petition was still pending, and that a copy of the decision would

be mailed to his attorney the date it was issued. He again

contacted the court and was informed on June 17, 2005, that the

court had affirmed the trial court’s denial of relief on September

30, 2004. His attorney also wrote him on July 11, 2005, to inform

him of the denial of relief, and to tell him that, if he wished to

pursue federal habeas relief, he should file a petition

immediately.

A court may apply equitable tolling to a limitations period

where a petitioner has established “two elements: (1) that he has

been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some

extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.” Pace v. Diguglielmo,

 U.S. , , 125 S.Ct. 1807, 1814, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005).4

“[E]quitable tolling is appropriate only in rare cases," Von Eye

Case 5:05-cv-00291-JLH Document 9 Filed 01/26/06 Page 6 of 7
7

v. U.S., 92 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 1996), “when the ‘principles of

equity would make [the] rigid application [of a limitation period]

unfair.’” Miller v. New Jersey State Dep’t. Of Corrections, 145

F.3d 616, 618 (3rd Cir. 1998). 

The petitioner must show that he or she “exercised

reasonable diligence in investigating and bringing [the]

claims.” Mere excusable neglect is not sufficient.

Id. at 618-19 (citations omitted). C.f Alvarez-Machain v. U.S.,

107 F.3d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 814

(1997)(Equitable tolling appropriate where Federal Tort Claims Act

plaintiff had been incarcerated for over two years in a foreign

country, in complex case in which his life was at stake). 

Petitioner has not explained why he delayed from June until

October in filing this petition, and I must find he simply was not

diligent in pursuing his rights. The petition must be dismissed as

untimely.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this petition be, and it is

hereby, dismissed with prejudice. The relief prayed for is denied.

SO ORDERED this 26th day of January, 2006.

 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00291-JLH Document 9 Filed 01/26/06 Page 7 of 7