United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
H. DAVID YOUNG, Magistrate Judge.
The following findings and recommendation have been sent to United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. Any party may serve and file written objections to these findings and 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 recommendation. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in a 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 details 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:
In May of 2010, petitioner Edwin Jon Cridge ("Cridge") pleaded guilty in case number CR-2009-442 and was sentenced as an habitual offender to 240 months in the custody of respondent Ray Hobbs, the Director of the Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC"). In December of 2010, Cridge received an ADC Time Computation Card ("time card") that outlined the manner in which the ADC was administering his sentence. It reflected, inter alia, that the "seventy percent rule" of Ark. Code Ann. XX-XX-XXX was being applied to his sentence, that is, he would be required to serve seventy percent of his 240 month sentence before being eligible for parole/transfer. In August of 2011, Cridge was given another time card, a copy of which is in the record. See Document 2, Addendum 13. This time card also reflected, inter alia, that the "seventy percent rule" of Ark. Code Ann. XX-XX-XXX was being applied to his sentence.
In June of 2014, Cridge commenced this case by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. In the petition, he raised three claims challenging the ADC's application of the "seventy percent rule" to his sentence in CR-2009-442.
Hobbs responded to Cridge's petition by filing the pending motion to dismiss. See Document 7. In the motion, Hobbs maintained that the petition should be dismissed because it is barred by limitations.
Cridge filed a response to Hobbs' motion and maintained that the petition was not barred by limitations. It was Cridge's position that he filed his petition within one year of the judgment in CR-2009-442 becoming final. He maintained that in April of 2013, he filed a state trial court petition for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus challenging the ADC's application of the "seventy percent rule" to his sentence. The state trial court dismissed his petition/writ, and he appealed. The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed his appeal in April of 2014, and he maintained that it was only then that his conviction became final. With respect to the limitations question, Cridge advanced an alternative assertion. He maintained that the time cards did ...