Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00338/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00338-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

OTHA BENSON, ADC #101648 PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 5:19-cv-00338-KGB

DORALEE CHANDLER, General Counsel, State Crime Lab, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is the Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate 

Judge Beth Deere on November 6, 2019 (Dkt. No. 4). In her Recommended Disposition, Judge 

Deere recommends that plaintiff Otha Benson’s claims be dismissed without prejudice. On 

November 19, 2019, Mr. Benson filed a motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint, 

which the Court construes as an objection to Judge Deere’s Recommended Disposition (Dkt. No. 

5). On November 20, 2019, Mr. Benson filed a motion to assign new judge (Dkt. No. 6). On 

December 5, 2019, Mr. Benson filed a response to the Recommended Disposition, which the Court 

also construes as an objection (Dkt. No. 7). On February 10, 2020, Mr. Benson filed a motion for 

status update (Dkt. No. 8). After careful consideration of the Recommended Disposition, Mr. 

Benson’s motions, and a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the conclusion reached by 

Judge Deere in the Recommended Disposition.

I. Motion To Assign A New Judge

The Court will first address Mr. Benson’s motion to assign new judge (Dkt. No. 6). Mr. 

Benson requests that “he be assigned a new judge to his civil complaint due to bias and conflict of 

interest in Judge Baker.” (Id., ¶ 1.) Mr. Benson requests that I recuse from this case because I 

denied a petition for writ of habeas corpus that Mr. Benson filed in this Court in 2014. See Benson 

v. Hobbs, No. 5:14-cv-00050-KGB (E.D. Ark. Mar. 31, 2015). Insofar as Mr. Benson’s only 

Case 5:19-cv-00338-KGB Document 9 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 4
2

argument for recusal is that I previously ruled against him, Mr. Benson’s motion to assign new 

judge is denied (Dkt. No. 6). See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“Almost 

invariably, [judicial rulings] are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.”); United States v. 

Melton, 738 F.3d 903, 906 (8th Cir. 2013) (“Judicial rulings rarely establish a valid basis for 

recusal.”).

II. Objections To Recommended Disposition

The Court writes separately to address Mr. Benson’s objections. Mr. Benson is currently 

incarcerated in the East Arkansas Regional Unit of the Arkansas Department of Corrections in 

Brickeys, Arkansas (Dkt. No. 2, at 4). Mr. Benson objects to Judge Deere’s Recommended 

Disposition, alleging that he has documentation that shows that employees at the Arkansas State 

Crime Laboratory tampered with and contaminated his DNA sample (Dkt. No. 5, ¶¶ 1–4). 

Claiming that the newly-discovered evidence will “exonerate him of his criminal conviction,” Mr. 

Benson requests a six-month extension of time to file an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 (Id., ¶ 8).

The details of Mr. Benson’s criminal conviction, direct appeal, and unsuccessful first 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus are set out in the record in his habeas case. See 

Benson, No. 5:14-cv-00050-KGB. The Court understands that the allegations Mr. Benson makes

here relate to that same criminal conviction. 

Without commenting on the merits of the allegations in the instant motion filed by Mr. 

Benson for an extension of time to amend his complaint, the Court finds that the claims Mr. Benson 

proposes raising in an amended complaint would be barred by the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 

512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), as a judgment in Mr. Benson’s favor on such claims would “necessarily 

imply” the invalidity of his criminal conviction. In Heck, the Supreme Court held that:

Case 5:19-cv-00338-KGB Document 9 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 4
3

[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or 

imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would 

render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the 

conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive 

order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, 

or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or 

sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus, 

when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider 

whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity 

of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless 

the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been 

invalidated.

Id. at 486–87 (footnote omitted).

Here, each of the claims that Mr. Benson proposes raising in an amended complaint

alleging § 1983 claims, if successful, would “necessarily imply” the invalidity of Mr. Benson’s 

conviction or sentence. As such, and because Mr. Benson has not alleged that his conviction or 

sentence has already been invalidated, his proposed claims would be barred by the Heck doctrine. 

Because the Court determines that the claims Mr. Benson proposes asserting in an amended

complaint would be barred by the Heck doctrine and futile, the Court denies Mr. Benson’s motion 

for a six-month extension of time to file an amended complaint. See Moses.com Sec., Inc. v. 

Comprehensive Software Sys., Inc., 406 F.3d 1052, 1065 (8th Cir. 2005) (stating that futility is a 

valid basis for denying leave to amend).1

III. Conclusion

 

 

1

 In his original complaint, Mr. Benson asserts a denial of his constitutional right of access to 

the courts. That claim is not barred by the Heck doctrine, as success on the merits of the claim 

would not “necessarily imply” the invalidity of Mr. Benson’s conviction or sentence. Rather, Mr. 

Benson’s access-to-courts claim is dismissed for the reasons discussed by Judge Deere in her 

Recommended Disposition. There is no evidence that Mr. Benson was denied access, as evidenced 

by his filings, nor is there a claim or evidence of injury.

Case 5:19-cv-00338-KGB Document 9 Filed 02/13/20 Page 3 of 4
4

Accordingly, the Court denies Mr. Benson’s motion to assign a new judge (Dkt. No. 6). 

The Court adopts the Recommended Disposition in its entirety as this Court’s findings of fact and 

conclusions of law (Dkt. No. 4). The Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Benson’s complaint. 

The Court denies Mr. Benson’s motion for a six-month extension of time to file an amended 

complaint (Dkt. No. 5). The Court denies as moot Mr. Benson’s motion for status update (Dkt. 

No. 8). Dismissal of this action constitutes a “strike” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Finally, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal 

from the Order and Judgment entered in this case would not be taken in good faith.

It is so ordered this 13th day of February, 2020.

_________________________________

Kristine G. Baker

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-00338-KGB Document 9 Filed 02/13/20 Page 4 of 4