Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_07-cv-00315/USCOURTS-ared-5_07-cv-00315-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abraham Grant
Plaintiff
Larry Norris
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

 PINE BLUFF DIVISION

ABRAHAM GRANT PETITIONER

v. NO. 5:07CV00315 JLH-JFF

LARRY NORRIS, Director,

Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District

Court Judge J. Leon Holmes. 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 eleven (11) 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

Case 5:07-cv-00315-JLH Document 7 Filed 02/08/08 Page 1 of 8
-2-

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 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 Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge recommends

that the petition be dismissed summarily without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Following a jury trial in Phillips County Circuit Court in March of 2003, Petitioner

was found guilty of the capital murder of Ms. Rosetta Pittman and first-degree battery

of Ms. Louise Perry. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole on the

capital murder conviction and five years’ imprisonment on the first-degree battery

Case 5:07-cv-00315-JLH Document 7 Filed 02/08/08 Page 2 of 8
-3-

conviction, the sentences to run concurrently. Petitioner appealed to the Arkansas

Supreme Court. As his sole point on appeal, Petitioner argued that the trial court erred

in admitting into evidence statements made by Rosetta Pittman under the dying

declaration exception to the hearsay rule. The Supreme Court found that Petitioner’s

argument was without merit and affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. Grant v.

State, 357 Ark. 91, 161 S.W.3d 785 (2004). Petitioner did not seek post-conviction

relief in state court pursuant to Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure.

On February 22, 2005, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in this Court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his capital murder and first-degree battery

convictions. He raised the following grounds for relief:

1. Petitioner was denied the right to a speedy trial;

2. There is insufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s convictions;

3. The jury was unfair;

4. Witnesses made conflicting statements;

5. Captain David Lovell changed his statement on the stand under

oath “from that which was in the motion discovery on the investigation

report sheet”; and

6. Counsel was ineffective and had a conflict of interest.

On October 3, 2005, the Magistrate Judge undersigned dismissed Petitioner’s

habeas petition with prejudice, finding that Claims 1, 3, and 6 were procedurally barred

and that Petitioner’s other claims were without merit. Grant v. Norris, No. 5:05CV00058

JFF (E.D. Ark. Oct. 3, 2005). Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, which the Eighth Circuit

treated as an application for a certificate of appealability. On September 7, 2006, the

Case 5:07-cv-00315-JLH Document 7 Filed 02/08/08 Page 3 of 8
-4-

Eighth Circuit denied the application for a certificate of appealability and dismissed

Petitioner’s appeal. Grant v. Norris, No. 05-4039 (8th Cir. Sept. 7, 2006). 

In 2006, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus and a pro se

petition for declaratory judgment in Phillips County Circuit Court. Each petition attacked

the credibility of witnesses at Petitioner’s trial and alleged errors by the trial court in

admission of evidence at trial. On January 23, 2007, the circuit court denied the

petitions, finding that the appropriate remedy for Petitioner’s claims was an appeal from

his convictions, not a petition for writ of mandamus or petition for a declaratory

judgment. Petitioner appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court. On May 3, 2007, the

Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, holding that a mandamus

action is not a substitute for an appeal and that declaratory judgment action is not a

means to reargue evidentiary issues that could have been, or were, raised in a criminal

trial. Grant v. State, No. CR 07-224, 2007 Ark. LEXIS 282 (Ark. Sup. Ct. May 3, 2007).

On May 8, 2007, Petitioner filed a second § 2254 petition in this Court. He

attacked his capital murder and first-degree battery convictions, contending that the jury

sentenced him in violation of Arkansas statutes and rules of evidence and “on

speculation and conflicting testimony.” He also contended that the circuit court denied

him a hearing on his petition for writ of mandamus and petition for declaratory judgment

and that the Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed his appeal without holding a hearing

“due to [his] being without counsel.” He asserted that the state courts’ actions violated

his right to equal protection. On May 22, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued proposed

findings and recommendations, finding that Petitioner’s petition was a second or

Case 5:07-cv-00315-JLH Document 7 Filed 02/08/08 Page 4 of 8
-5-

successive habeas application filed without authorization from the Eighth Circuit and

recommending that the petition be dismissed summarily without prejudice for lack of

jurisdiction. On May 30, 2007, Judge Holmes adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings

and recommendation and summarily dismissed Petitioner’s habeas petition without

prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Grant v. Norris, No. 5:07CV00097 JLH (E.D. Ark. May

30, 2007). On June 6, 2007, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. On June 8, 2007,

Judge Holmes denied Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability. On July

5, 2007, the Eighth Circuit denied Petitioner’s application for a certificate of

appealability and dismissed his appeal. Grant v. Norris, No. 07-2359 (8th Cir. July 5,

2007).

On or about June 5, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition to correct illegal sentence

in Phillips County Circuit Court pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111, asserting that

his sentence for capital murder is illegal and violates his right to due process because

he was not charged with that offense, but rather first-degree murder. The circuit court

treated the petition as a Rule 37 petition and denied the petition on June 15, 2007,

finding that it had no merit. Petitioner appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court. For

reversal, he argued, inter alia, that the circuit court violated his right to due process by

changing the charge from first-degree murder to capital murder, an offense for which

he was not charged. Petitioner’s appeal is still pending.

On December 18, 2007, Petitioner filed the pending § 2254 petition in this Court.

He once again attacks his conviction for capital murder, contending that the circuit court

violated his right to due process by sentencing him on the offense of capital murder, an

Case 5:07-cv-00315-JLH Document 7 Filed 02/08/08 Page 5 of 8
 1

 Rule 4 provides: 

The clerk must promptly forward the petition to a judge under the

court’s assignment procedure, and the judge must promptly examine

it. If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that

the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge

must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.

If the petition is not dismissed, the judge must order the respondent

to file an answer, motion, or other response within a fixed time, or to

take other action the judge may order. In every case, the clerk must

serve a copy of the petition and any order on the respondent and on

the attorney general or other appropriate officer of the state involved.

-6-

offense for which he was not charged, and by changing the charge from first-degree

murder to capital murder. This Court has not ordered the Respondent to file an answer

or response to the petition. 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Courts authorizes a district court to dismiss summarily a habeas corpus petition prior

to any answer or other pleading by the State.1 Summary dismissal is appropriate under

Rule 4 where the face of the petition and the court records, of which a federal district

court can take judicial notice, indicate that the petition is a second or successive

petition filed without authorization from the appropriate court of appeals. Harris v.

Dretke, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14509 at ** 3-4 (N.D. Tex. July 28, 2004) (recommended

disposition), adopted by order of district court, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16273 (N.D. Tex.

Aug. 13, 2004); Scott v. Dretke, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31269 at ** 3-5 (N.D. Tex. Dec.

6, 2005) (recommended disposition), adopted by order of district court, 2005 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 36300 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2005); Nash v. Beard, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80218

at ** 1-5 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 17, 2006). Before filing a second or successive habeas

Case 5:07-cv-00315-JLH Document 7 Filed 02/08/08 Page 6 of 8
 2 The Magistrate Judge notes that the Respondent has not been ordered to

respond to Petitioner’s habeas petition. In addition, a respondent’s failure to timely

respond to a federal habeas corpus petition does not entitle the petitioner to a default

judgment. Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 138 (6th Cir. 1970); Aziz v. Leferve, 830 F.2d

184, 187 (11th Cir. 1987); Bermudez v. Reid, 733 F.2d 18, 21-22 (2d Cir. 1984).

-7-

application in district court pursuant to § 2254, a petitioner is required to move in the

appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the

application. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Section 2244(b)(3)(A) “acts as a jurisdictional

bar to the district court’s asserting jurisdiction over a successive habeas petition” until

the court of appeals has granted the Petitioner permission to file one. Crone v. Cockrell,

324 F.3d 833, 836 (5th Cir. 2003); Williams v. Hopkins, 130 F.3d 333, 336 (8th Cir.

1997). 

From the face of the instant habeas petition and the court records, it is apparent

that Petitioner’s petition is a second or successive habeas application. Petitioner has

not obtained authorization from the Eighth Circuit to file a second or successive habeas

application. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Petitioner’s habeas

corpus petition be dismissed summarily without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction

pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

Petitioner has filed a motion for default judgment (docket entry # 4), alleging that

the Respondent has failed to timely respond to Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition.

Because this Court lacks jurisdiction, the motion should be denied.2

THEREFORE, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Petitioner’s petition for

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be dismissed summarily without

prejudice for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Case 5:07-cv-00315-JLH Document 7 Filed 02/08/08 Page 7 of 8
-8-

Cases. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Petitioner’s motion for default judgment

be denied.

Dated this 8th day of February, 2008.

 /s/ John F. Forster, Jr. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:07-cv-00315-JLH Document 7 Filed 02/08/08 Page 8 of 8