Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_14-cv-00050/USCOURTS-ared-5_14-cv-00050-1/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 

OTHA BENSON 

ADC # 101648 PETITIONER 

v. Case No. 5:14-cv-00050 KGB/JJV 

RAY HOBBS, Director, 

Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT 

ORDER

 The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted 

by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 19) and Petitioner Otha Benson’s 

objections (Dkt. No. 19). After carefully considering the objections and making a de novo 

review of the record in this case, the Court approves and adopts in their entirety the Proposed 

Findings and Recommended Disposition as this Court’s findings in all respects. 

 The Court writes separately to address Mr. Benson’s argument that the United States 

Supreme Court’s decisions in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler, 

133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013), require an equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for Mr. Benson to 

file a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court rejects Mr. 

Benson’s argument. Nothing in the holdings in either case provides a basis for excusing a 

prisoner’s compliance with the one-year statute of limitations for filing a § 2254 habeas action in 

federal court. See Arthur v. Thomas, 739 F.3d 611, 628–31 (11th Cir.2014) (holding that “the 

reasoning of the Martinez rule does not apply to ... [the one-year] limitations period in § 2254 

cases or any potential tolling of that period”), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 106 (2014); see also

Woodruff v. Hobbs, No. 5:13-CV-00317-KGB, 2014 WL 7399197, at *4 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 22, 

2014) reconsideration denied, No. 5:13-CV-00317-KGB, 2014 WL 7399200 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 10, 

Case 5:14-cv-00050-KGB Document 23 Filed 03/31/15 Page 1 of 2
2 

2014).

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2554 Cases in 

the United States District Court, the Court must determine whether to issue a certificate of 

appealability in the 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). The Court finds no issue on which Mr. Benson has made a substantial showing 

of a denial of a constitutional right. Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 

appealability. 

 Accordingly, the Court dismisses with prejudice Mr. Benson’s petition (Dkt. No. 2). The 

Court denies the requested relief and denies as moot any pending motions. 

 SO ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2015. 

 _______________________________ 

 Kristine G. Baker 

 United States District Judge 

Case 5:14-cv-00050-KGB Document 23 Filed 03/31/15 Page 2 of 2