United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED FINDINGS AND
following proposed Supplemental Findings and Recommendation
have been sent to United States District Judge D.P. Marshall
Jr. You may file written objections to all or part of this
Supplemental 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 this Recommendation. By
not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of
April 11, 2018, United States District Judge D.P. Marshall
Jr. vacated the March 28, 2018 Order and Judgment in this
habeas corpus case. The case was referred to the undersigned
to provide a supplemental or amended recommendation. The
pertinent events are as follows:
• Charles Edward Goodwin (“Goodwin”) filed
his petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 10, 2017.
Docket entry no. 2.
• Goodwin also filed a motion for discovery on July 10,
2017. Docket entry no. 4. Goodwin sought the production of
“the entire discovery file, ” including the
photo array viewed by witness Betty Word, her original
statements, crime scene photos, and the entire investigative
file. Docket entry no. 4, page 2.
• In an Order dated July 24, 2017, the undersigned
denied the motion for discovery without prejudice to renewing
the motion at a later date. Docket entry no. 5. The
undersigned, citing Rule 6 of Rule Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Court, held Goodwin had
not shown entitlement to discovery.
• On September 7, 2017, Goodwin filed a pleading styled
“Objection to Order Denying Motion for Discovery
File.” Docket entry no. 9. This pleading was filed as a
“Response.” In the pleading, Goodwin recited that
he sought his state discovery file “in order to
ascertain other claims that may be viable for the court's
consideration.” He also asserted the file was
“crucial to further developing habeas claims and is
need for further investigation that could prove exculpatory
in nature.” Docket entry no. 4, page 1.
• The undersigned issued Proposed Findings and
Recommendation on February 14, 2018, recommending that the
petition be dismissed as untimely. Docket entry no. 23. Among
other things, the undersigned addressed Goodwin's
argument that his tardy petition should be considered because
of his actual innocence. As part of this analysis, the
undersigned reviewed the trial transcript in full, as well as
the decision on direct appeal of the Arkansas Supreme Court.
Goodwin v. State, 373 Ark. 53 (2008).
• Goodwin filed an objection to the undersigned Proposed
Findings and Recommendation on March 21, 2018. Docket entry
no. 26. In this pleading, he alleged he has never received
his discovery file despite requesting it on numerous
occasions, and the file “contained potentially
exculpatory evidence that would assist him in habeas
proceedings.” Docket entry no. 26, page 3. He also
claimed the “lack of discovery has hampered his ability
to file the habeas on time.” Docket entry no. 26, page
• Judge Marshall adopted the undersigned's Proposed
Findings and Recommendation by Order of March 28, 2018.
Docket entry no. 28. Judgment was entered. Docket entry no.
• Judge Marshall vacated the Order and Judgment on April
11, and referred the case back to the undersigned to address
the discovery issue. Docket entry no. 32.
Judge Marshall asked this Court to consider: (1) if Goodwin
was entitled to discovery: (2) if so, should new material be
provided to Goodwin or reviewed in camera; and (3)
if any discovery would affect the suggested disposition of
Goodwin's habeas petition. For the reasons set forth
below, Goodwin's requests for discovery were without
merit and, even if granted, would not have affected the
suggested disposition of the case.