United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
I.
Procedure for Filing Objections:
This
Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has
been sent to Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. Mr. Martin may file
written objections with the Clerk of Court within 14 days
after the date of this Recommendation. Objections should be
specific and should include the factual or legal basis for
the objection.
If he
does not file objections to the Recommendation, Mr. Martin
may waive the right to appeal questions of fact. And, if no
objections are filed, Judge Marshall can adopt this
Recommendation without independently reviewing the record.
II.
Jurisdiction:
Petitioner
Lawrence Martin, an inmate in the Arkansas Department of
Correction, was convicted by a Pulaski County, Arkansas jury
of capital murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment
without the possibility of parole. His conviction and
sentence were affirmed in a direct appeal to the Arkansas
Supreme Court. Martin v. State, 328 Ark. 420 (1997).
Mr.
Martin filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 on June 18, 2019. (Docket entry #2) In
his petition, Mr. Martin challenges the May 30, 2019 denial
by the Arkansas Supreme Court of his second state petition
for error coram nobis relief. (Id.) He asks this
Court to “review his 135 page petition” filed
with the Arkansas Supreme Court and vaguely argues both that
his constitutional right to counsel was violated and that the
Arkansas Supreme Court violated the requirements of
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
(Id. at 1, 11-12)
This
Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of Mr.
Martin's petition because he has already challenged his
conviction through several earlier federal habeas petitions.
Mr. Martin first petitioned for habeas relief in September of
2001, raising ten claims of ineffective assistance of trial
and appellate counsel. Martin v. Norris, No.
5:01-CV-331-SMR-JFF (#2). The claims were determined to be
procedurally defaulted, and the petition was dismissed in
November of 2003. (#21, # 23, #24) Both the district court
and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Mr. Martin a
certificate of appealability. (#29); Martin v.
Norris, No. 04-1023 (8th Cir. March 17, 2004). Mr.
Martin unsuccessfully petitioned for rehearing before the
Eighth Circuit (Id. (8th Cir. April 19, 2004)), and
for a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme
Court. Martin v. Norris, 543 U.S. 843 (2004).
Mr.
Martin filed a second petition for habeas relief in January
of 2010. In that petition, Mr. Martin alleged that the trial
judge had refused to correct a perjured statement; had
violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause; had
allowed contaminated evidence from the crime scene to be
introduced at trial; had incorrectly instructed the jury; and
had impermissibly allowed the prosecuting attorney to exclude
African-Americans from the jury. Martin v. Norris,
5:10-CV-16-BD (#2). Respondent moved to dismiss the petition,
arguing that, absent permission to file a successive habeas
petition, the district court lacked jurisdiction. (#9) This
Court agreed and dismissed the petition. (#14, #15)
Thereafter, the Eighth Circuit denied Mr. Martin's
request for authorization to file a successive habeas
petition. Martin v. Hobbs, No. 10-1888 (8th Cir.
Aug. 3, 2010).
In June
of 2014, Mr. Martin again petitioned the Eighth Circuit for
permission to file a successive habeas petition. Martin
v. Hobbs, No. 14-2434 (8th Cir. June 30, 2014). His
petition was denied. Id. (8th Cir. Nov. 26, 2014).
Mr. Martin petitioned for rehearing, but the petition was
denied as untimely. Id. (8th Cir. March 16, 2015).
Mr.
Martin filed a third petition for habeas relief in May of
2018. In that petition, he alleged that African-Americans
were improperly excluded from the jury; that the trial judge
had incorrectly instructed the jury on the elements of the
crimes charged; that his arrest warrant was based on a
falsified affidavit; that his appellate counsel was
ineffective; and that an inaccurately transcribed videotaped
deposition was improperly allowed into the record. Martin
v. Kelley, 5:18-CV-112-DPM-BD (#2). Because Mr.
Martin's petition was successive, it was denied, and no
certificate of appealability was issued. (#3, #5, #6)
In May
2018, Mr. Martin again petitioned the Eight Circuit for
permission to file a successive habeas petition. Martin
v. Kelley, No. 18-2128 (8th Cir. May 25, 2018). His
petition was denied, and he did not move for rehearing.
Id. (8th Cir. Nov. 6, 2018).
Mr.
Martin's current habeas petition - his fourth - must be
dismissed because he has not obtained permission from the
Eighth Circuit to pursue a successive petition. Before Mr.
Martin is eligible to file another federal habeas corpus
petition, he must seek and receive an order from the Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit authorizing this Court to
consider a successive petition. 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(3)(A).Without an order from the court of appeals, the
district court lacks jurisdiction to hear the petition.
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152-53, 157
(2007).[1]
Summary
dismissal of a habeas corpus petition - prior to any answer
or other pleading from the respondent - is appropriate where,
as here, the petition itself and court records show that the
petition is a second or successive petition filed without
authorization from the court of appeals. See Rule 4, Rules
Governing Habeas Corpus Cases. The pending petition is
clearly successive.
III.
...