From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Heard v. Hobbs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION
May 15, 2012
CASE NO.: 5:11CV000218 SWW/BD (E.D. Ark. May. 15, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO.: 5:11CV000218 SWW/BD

05-15-2012

DEMETRIUS LETRON HEARD ADC #601345 PETITIONER v. RAY HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT


ORDER

Petitioner has filed an identical Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration in three separate cases: No. 5:11-cv-00216-JJV, No. 5:11-cv-00218-SWW, and No. 5:12-cv-00091-SWW. In Case No. 5:11-cv-00216-JJV, Judge Volpe ruled as follows on petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration:

Before the Court is Petitioner's Rule 60(b) Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 13). Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits federal habeas petitioners to seek relief from a final judgment in only a few limited circumstances. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). Here, Petitioner challenges the Court's dismissal of his Petition as time barred by contending the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012) constitutes an extraordinary circumstance to allow this Court to equitably toll the one-year limitations period. (Id.) After considering Petitioner's argument, the Court finds that the holding in Martinez in no way relates to timeliness of a federal habeas petition. Consequently, Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 13) is denied.

For the reason's stated by Judge Volpe in Case No. 5:11-cv-00216-JJV, the Court denies petitioner's identical Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration [doc.#9] in this case.

Susan Webber Wright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Heard v. Hobbs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION
May 15, 2012
CASE NO.: 5:11CV000218 SWW/BD (E.D. Ark. May. 15, 2012)
Case details for

Heard v. Hobbs

Case Details

Full title:DEMETRIUS LETRON HEARD ADC #601345 PETITIONER v. RAY HOBBS, Director…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION

Date published: May 15, 2012

Citations

CASE NO.: 5:11CV000218 SWW/BD (E.D. Ark. May. 15, 2012)

Citing Cases

Vogt v. Coleman

However, Martinez did not provide that post-conviction counsel's ineffectiveness could establish an exception…

Silfies v. Walsh

However, Martinez did not provide that post-conviction counsel's ineffectiveness could establish an exception…