Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00162/USCOURTS-ared-5_16-cv-00162-0/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 

STEVEN C. HAYES )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Case No. 5:16-cv-00162 BSM-JTK

ADC # 657050 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

WENDY KELLEY, Director, 

Arkansas Department of Correction 

 Respondent. 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Instructions 

 The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Court Chief 

Judge Brian S. Miller. 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 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 also desire to submit new, different, or additional 

evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at 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 

Case 5:16-cv-00162-BSM Document 35 Filed 09/19/16 Page 1 of 5
2 

documentary or other non-testimonial 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 A149 

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 

Disposition 

 BEFORE THE COURT is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Steven C. Hayes on 

May 27, 2016 (Doc. No. 1). Respondent Wendy Kelley filed a response June 28, 2016 (Doc. No. 9). 

After reviewing the parties’ briefing and the available evidence, the Court finds that the current action 

should be DISMISSED. 

For the reasons that follow, it is the undersigned’s recommendation that the Motion to Dismiss 

(Doc. No. 21) be withdrawn, the Motion to Withdraw Motion to Dismiss be granted (Doc. No. 33), and 

all other motions be denied as moot. It is further recommended that the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus (Doc. No. 1) be denied with prejudice. 

Background 

Petitioner entered a guilty plea on December 10, 2014. He pleaded guilty to four counts of firstdegree sexual assault and received a sentence of 336 months. On May 27, 2016, Petitioner filed his 

federal habeas petition (Doc. No. 1). Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 21). 

The undersigned directed Petitioner to notify the Court within thirty (30) days whether he wished to 

dismiss his petition or proceed further. On September 7, 2016, Petitioner informed the Court that he 

wished to withdraw his Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 33). Also pending are Petitioner’s Motion to 

Case 5:16-cv-00162-BSM Document 35 Filed 09/19/16 Page 2 of 5
3 

Appoint Counsel (Doc. No. 31) and Motions for Order (Doc. Nos. 32, 34). 

Discussion

Construing Petitioner’s petition liberally, he now requests relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

based on the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Specifically, Petitioner asserts counsel was 

ineffective for (1) failing to investigate prior rape claims by the victim, (2) failing to provide correct 

sentencing advice, (3) failing to investigate his competency or an insanity defense, (4) failing to 

investigate his psychiatric history, and (5) making unfulfillable promises. See Doc. No. 1, Petition. 

Section 2244 requires state habeas petitioners to file their petitions within one year of “the date 

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

seeking such review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Mr. Hayes pleaded guilty, and therefore, he had no 

right to appeal his conviction. See Ark. R. App. P. – Crim. 1(a). The relevant starting date occurred on 

January 16, 2015, thirty days from the date the court filed the judgment and commitment order. 

Camacho v. Hobbs, 774 F.3d 931, 934 (8th Cir. 2015) (holding that, when an Arkansas petitioner pleads 

guilty, the critical date for finality of a state-court conviction is the expiration of the state’s filing 

deadline). Thus, Hayes was required to file his petition for federal habeas corpus by January 16, 2016. 

It was not filed until May 27, 2016, making the petition untimely. 

There is no reason to believe that equitable tolling would be appropriate. See Kreutzer v. 

Bowersox, 231 F.3d 460, 463 (8th Cir. 2000) (“Equitable tolling is proper only when extraordinary 

circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control make it impossible to file a petition on time.”). Lack of 

counsel, lack of legal knowledge and lack of access to a law library or legal research materials, are not 

circumstances which warrant the application of equitable tolling. See Cross-Bey v. Gammon, 322 F.3d 

1012, 1015 (8th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the Court finds that the Petitioner’s claims are time barred. 

Case 5:16-cv-00162-BSM Document 35 Filed 09/19/16 Page 3 of 5
4 

The 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 

(1991)). “However, that petitioner’s 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). “[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, “state 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. “A 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 failed to present any of his arguments for one complete round of review by the state 

courts, so his claims are procedurally defaulted. To the extent Petitioner would argue Martinez to excuse 

his procedural default, his claim must fail. Martinez merely gave prisoners a chance to have federal 

courts entertain initial ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims that had not been properly presented 

to the state courts due to the prisoner’s lack of counsel or the ineffective assistance of postconviction 

counsel. It does not apply to claims when a petitioner does not attempt to file a timely petition for 

postconviction relief. Further, his claims were not defaulted by postconviction counsel; thus Martinez 

does not apply. 

Case 5:16-cv-00162-BSM Document 35 Filed 09/19/16 Page 4 of 5
5 

Certificate of Appealability 

 Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 

Courts, the Court must determine whether to issue a certificate of appealability in its final order. In 

§ 2254 cases, a certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2) (2006). The Court finds no 

issue on which Petitioner has made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. Thus, the 

Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 

Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. No. 1) be dismissed with prejudice. The relief prayed for is 

DENIED. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 21) be 

withdrawn, the Motion to Withdraw Motion to Dismiss be granted (Doc. No. 33), and all other motions 

be denied as moot. 

The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2) (2006). Because 

the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability, it certifies that an appeal in forma pauperis would 

not be taken in good faith. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). 

SO ORDERED this 19th day of September, 2016. 

____________________________________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:16-cv-00162-BSM Document 35 Filed 09/19/16 Page 5 of 5