Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05031/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05031-3/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

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

CLIFTON ROBERT WARNER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 07-5031

LARRY NORRIS, Director,

Arkansas Department of Corrections DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 3d day of July, 2007, comes on for consideration

plaintiff's Notice Of Appeal (document #14), same being treated as

a Motion For Certificate Of Appealability. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2253, an appeal may not be taken from

a habeas corpus proceeding arising out of process issued by a

State court without the appellant first obtaining a Certificate Of

Appealability. Such a Certificate may issue "only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right."

Plaintiff -- who was convicted of rape in the State court --

brought a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254, alleging various

grounds for relief. The matter was submitted to the Magistrate

Judge, who reported that none of the alleged grounds had merit and

recommended that the petition be dismissed. In particular, the

Magistrate Judge recommended that four procedurally defaulted

claims be dismissed because plaintiff had made no claim of actual

innocence.

In response, plaintiff objected that he was, in fact,

Case 5:07-cv-05031-JLH Document 16 Filed 07/03/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

claiming actual innocence, in that he had pled "not guilty" to his

crime of conviction.

In adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report And Recommendation,

this Court pointed out that an unsupported allegation of actual

innocence would not justify relief, and that there was no

indication that plaintiff had "new reliable evidence" to present,

as required by governing case law.

In response, plaintiff's Notice Of Appeal states that there

was "new reliable medical and physical evidence that was very

critical [that] was not presented at trial to support the

prosecutions [sic] claim that any actual rape had even occured

[sic], making the commitment invalid on it's [sic] face."

Plaintiff's Notice Of Appeal does not suggest what this "new

reliable medical and physical evidence" might be, however. Like

his claim of actual innocence, it is unsupported by any

particulars. In addition, the Court notes that plaintiff's

Petition states, in Ground 2, that "[t]he medical exam report and

testimony of doctor "Karen Farst" of the Children's Advocacy

Center also clearly indicated no signs of any sexual abuse on the

alleged victim." It thus appears that "medical and physical

evidence" supporting plaintiff's position that he was innocent was

available at trial, and is not new evidence.

Under these circumstances, the Court perceives no basis to

issue a Certificate Of Appealability. As noted in the Court's

Case 5:07-cv-05031-JLH Document 16 Filed 07/03/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

Order dated June 12, 2007, the "actual innocence" gateway to

habeas relief on defaulted claims is not a broad one, House v.

Bell, 126 S.Ct. 2064, 2068 (2006), and it is only "[i]n certain

exceptional cases involving a compelling claim of actual

innocence. . . [that] the state procedural default rule is not a

bar to a federal habeas corpus petition." Plaintiff's vague

allegations of new evidence and constitutional error do not bring

him through this narrow gateway.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion For

Certificate Of Appealability (document #14) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-05031-JLH Document 16 Filed 07/03/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>