Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05031/USCOURTS-arwd-5_07-cv-05031-2/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 12th day of June, 2007, comes on for

consideration the Magistrate Judge's Report And Recommendation

(document #10), and plaintiff's Objections thereto (document #11),

and the Court, having carefully reviewed said Report And

Recommendation, finds that it is sound in all respects, and that

plaintiff's Objections are without merit and should be overruled.

1. Plaintiff Clifton Robert Warner ("Warner") was convicted

of rape in the Circuit Court of Benton County, Arkansas, on

September 14, 2004. Warner took a direct appeal, and the Arkansas

Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Warner v. State of

Arkansas, 93 Ark.App. 233, 218 S.W.3d 330 (2005). He did not file

a petition for post-conviction relief in the state court, but

filed a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. §2254 For Writ Of Habeas Corpus

By A Person In State Custody in this Court on February 21, 2007.

2. The Magistrate Judge reported that of Warner's six

claims for habeas relief, four were procedurally defaulted, and

two had been presented to the state court on appeal and resolved

adversely to plaintiff. The Magistrate Judge, thus, recommended

Case 5:07-cv-05031-JLH Document 12 Filed 06/12/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

that Warner's Petition be dismissed with prejudice.

3. In his Objections, Warner states that he is claiming

"actual innocence," and that he pled "not guilty" to his crime of

conviction. The Court interprets this as an objection to the

recommendation that certain of Warner's claims be dismissed due to

procedural default, given the rule that

[a] state prisoner procedurally defaults a claim when he

violates a state procedural rule that independently and

adequately bars direct review of the claim by the United

States Supreme Court, unless the prisoner can show cause

and prejudice for the default, or actual innocence.

Clemons v. Luebbers, 381 F.3d 744, 750 (8th Cir. 2004).

4. The "actual innocence" gateway to habeas relief on

defaulted claims is not a broad one. In House v. Bell, 126 S.Ct.

2064, 2068 (2006), the Supreme Court noted that 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." 

As explained in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 324 (1995),

to be credible, such a claim requires petitioner to

support his allegations of constitutional error with new

reliable evidence -- whether it be exculpatory

scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or

critical physical evidence -- that was not presented at

trial. Because such evidence is obviously unavailable in

the vast majority of cases, claims of actual innocence

are rarely successful.

Warner offers absolutely no indication that he has new

evidence to present, either in his Petition or in his Objections.

Case 5:07-cv-05031-JLH Document 12 Filed 06/12/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

He relies entirely on his statement that he pled "not guilty" to

support his assertion of actual innocence. Where the only basis

for habeas relief is an unsupported allegation of actual

innocence, the claim fails. See Neuendorf v. Graves, 110

F.Supp.2d 1144 (N.D. Iowa, 2000), citing U.S. v. Lurie, 207 F.3d

1075 (8th Cir. 2000). For this reason, Warner's Objections are

overruled.

5. The Court has reviewed the Report And Recommendation not

only in light of Warner's expressed Objections, but in light of

governing case law, and finds it to be sound in all respects.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report

And Recommendation is adopted in toto.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Warner's Objections to the Report

And Recommendation are overruled.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the

Magistrate Judge's Report And Recommendation, Warner

s claims are dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-05031-JLH Document 12 Filed 06/12/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>