Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00264/USCOURTS-ared-5_15-cv-00264-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Allen Adams
Plaintiff
Wendy Kelley
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

THOMAS ALLEN ADAMS )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Case No. 5:15-CV-00264 KGB-JTK

ADC # 148291 

 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 

Judge Kristine G. Baker. 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. 

Case 5:15-cv-00264-KGB Document 10 Filed 03/08/16 Page 1 of 4
2 

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 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Thomas 

Adams on August 11, 2015 (Doc. No. 2). Respondent Wendy Kelley filed a response on 

September 8, 2015 (Doc. No. 6). Petitioner filed a Reply on September 28, 2015 (Doc. No. 7). 

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

action should be DISMISSED. 

Background 

An August 31, 2010, Judgment and Commitment Order from the Drew County 

(Arkansas) Circuit Court indicates that Petitioner entered a negotiated plea of guilty or nolo 

contendere to rape of his niece and aggravated assault upon an employee of a correctional 

facility (Doc. No. 6-1).1

 Petitioner received twenty-five (25) years’ imprisonment in the 

Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). On April 7, 2011, the circuit court dismissed 

Petitioner’s petition for postconviction relief (Rule 37 petition) filed on March 21, 2011 because 

 

1

 Petitioner asserts he pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and no contest to rape. 

Case 5:15-cv-00264-KGB Document 10 Filed 03/08/16 Page 2 of 4
3 

it was untimely (Doc. No. 6-2). The circuit court denied a second Rule 37 petition on June 16, 

2011 (Doc. No. 6-3). On August 11, 2015, Petitioner filed his federal habeas petition (Doc. No. 

2). 

Discussion

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

2254 based on the following grounds: 1) ineffective assistance of counsel, 2) insufficient 

evidence, 3) invalid guilty plea, and 4) actual innocence. 

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. Adams pleaded 

guilty/nolo contendere, and therefore, had no right to appeal his conviction. See Ark. R. App. P. 

– Crim. 1(a). The relevant starting date occurred on September 30, 2010, 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, he was 

required to file his petition for federal habeas corpus by September 30, 2011. It was not filed 

until August 11, 2015, making the petition untimely. 

There is also 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.”). Petitioner brought the current action nearly four years after the limitations period had 

expired. 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 

Case 5:15-cv-00264-KGB Document 10 Filed 03/08/16 Page 3 of 4
4 

Cross-Bey v. Gammon, 322 F.3d 1012, 1015 (8th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the Court finds that 

the Petitioner’s claim is time barred. 

The Rule 37 petitions did not toll the statute of limitations because they were untimely. 

A “properly filed” Rule 37 petition would toll the statute of limitations while the petition was 

pending in state court. See § 2244(d)(2). An untimely Rule 37 petition is not “properly filed.” 

Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 417 (2012). 

Finally, the Court need not address Petitioner’s fourth argument actual innocence because 

the petition is clearly time-barred and because he failed to “present new evidence that 

affirmatively demonstrates that he is innocent of the crime for which he was convicted.” Murphy 

v. King, 652 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Abdi v. Hatch, 450 F.3d 334, 338 (8th Cir. 

2006)). The forensic evidence Petitioner does present shows that his semen was found on the 

bed sheets of the victim’s blue blanket (Doc. No. 2 at 95). This does not rise to the level of proof 

required for the actual innocence claim to excuse the petition’s untimeliness. 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. No. 2) be, and it is hereby, dismissed, with prejudice. The 

relief prayed for is DENIED. 

Further, 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). 

 SO ORDERED this 8th day of March, 2016. 

 __________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:15-cv-00264-KGB Document 10 Filed 03/08/16 Page 4 of 4