Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_12-cv-00354/USCOURTS-ared-5_12-cv-00354-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Lee Dunn
Plaintiff
Ray Hobbs
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

CHRISTOPHER LEE DUNN 

ADC #113626 PETITIONER 

 

VS. 5:12CV00354 SWW/JTR 

 

RAY HOBBS, Director, 

Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

INSTRUCTIONS 

 The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been 

sent to United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright. You may file written 

objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections 

must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and 

(2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the entry of 

this Recommendation. The failure to timely file objections may result in waiver of 

the right to appeal questions of fact. 

 Mail any objections to: 

 Clerk, United States District Court 

 Eastern District of Arkansas 

 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 

 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

Case 5:12-cv-00354-SWW Document 20 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 4
2 

I. Background 

 Petitioner, Christopher Lee Dunn (“Dunn”), is serving an aggregate sentence 

of life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole, based on his 1998 guilty 

plea to charges of capital murder and attempted capital murder. On September 11, 

2012, Dunn initiated this § 2254 habeas action collaterally attacking his 

convictions. Doc. 1. 

 On November 30, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge H. David Young 

entered a Recommended Disposition (doc. 10) recommending that this case be 

dismissed, as untimely. On December 18, 2012, United States District Judge Susan 

Webber Wright adopted Judge Young’s Recommended Disposition and declined to 

issue a certificate of appealability. Doc. 12. Dunn did not subsequently request a 

certificate of appealability from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

 On November 16, 2015, Dunn filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment, 

pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 Doc. 14. For the 

reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that the Motion be denied. 

II. Discussion 

 Dunn argues that the merits of the ineffective assistance of counsel claims he 

asserted in his original habeas Petition should now be considered pursuant to 

Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012). In Martinez, the Court recognized a 

 1

 Dunn has also filed an “Amended Motion” for Rule 60(b) relief. Doc. 18. Due to Judge Young’s 

retirement, the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge was randomly assigned this case. 

Case 5:12-cv-00354-SWW Document 20 Filed 12/07/15 Page 2 of 4
3 

“limited” and “narrow” equitable exception to the procedural default doctrine in 

jurisdictions where an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim must be raised 

for the first time in an “initial-review collateral proceeding”: “[A] procedural 

default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial claim of 

ineffective assistance at trial if, in the initial-review collateral proceeding, there 

was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective.” Id. at 1320. 

Martinez has no application in this case, because Dunn’s § 2254 habeas 

petition was dismissed on the ground it was untimely filed. The Martinez exception 

is an equitable exception to the procedural default doctrine, but does not apply to 

excuse an untimely habeas petition under AEDPA’s statute of limitations. See, e.g. 

Coleman v. Atty Gen., 2015 WL 6749891, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 5, 2015) (Martinez

is “not applicable when the issue is whether a claim is untimely due to the running 

of the AEDPA limitations period.”) (citing cases); Toby v. Lamas, 2015 WL 

4878708, *10 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2015) (“Martinez did not deal with the statute of 

limitations; it addressed procedural default of state claims. And Martinez does not 

provide a basis for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.”) (citing cases); 

Britton v. Cain, 2015 WL 4755102 (E.D. La. Aug.6, 2015) (“the Magistrate Judge 

properly determined that because Martinez concerned the procedural default 

doctrine, and not the AEDPA's statute of limitations, it is inapplicable here and 

Case 5:12-cv-00354-SWW Document 20 Filed 12/07/15 Page 3 of 4
4 

does not excuse Petitioner's failure to seek federal relief in a timely manner.”) 

(citing cases). 

III. Conclusion 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT Petitioner’s Motion for 

Relief From Judgment (doc. 14) and Amended Motion for Relief (doc. 18) be 

DENIED. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT a Certificate of 

Appealability be DENIED pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 

2254 Cases. 

 Dated this 7th day of December, 2015. 

____________________________________ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:12-cv-00354-SWW Document 20 Filed 12/07/15 Page 4 of 4