Robinson v. State of Arkansas

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
ROBERT EARL ROBINSON 	PETITIONER
v. 	No. 1:24-cv-01084
STATE OF ARKANSAS 	RESPONDENT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Robert Earl
Robinson (“Robinson”). ECF No. 1. 1 Robinson, an inmate confined in ADC, Ouachita River Unit
in Malvern, Arkansas, proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Id., ECF No. 4. The Petition was
referred to the undersigned for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the
disposition of the case.
On December 5, 2024, the Court determined that a response should be filed to the Petition
and directed the Respondent, the State of Arkansas, to file its response on or before January 5,
2025. ECF No. 5. On December 31, 2024, the State of Arkansas filed a response in the form of a
“Motion to Dismiss Successive Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus”. ECF No. 10. 2 After a review
of the Petition and the Motion, the Court finds it is not necessary to conduct a hearing3 nor is there
any need for Robinson to respond to the Motion for a recommendation to be made by this Court.
1Although Robinson filed the Petition as one for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court has reviewed
this Petition and finds it is a request for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
2 The State of Arkansas correctly noted in its Motion that Dexter Payne, the Director of the Arkansas Division of
Correction, is the proper respondent for a prisoner who is challenging a state-court judgment in a § 2254 action. ECF
No. 10, p. 1.
3 "A federal court may dismiss a claim without an evidentiary hearing where the allegations are frivolous, where the
allegations fail to state a constitutional claim, where the relevant facts are not in dispute, or where the dispute can be
resolved on the basis of the record." Urquhart v. Lockhart, 726 F.2d 1316 (8th Cir.1984).
Case 1:24-cv-01084-SOH Document 11 Filed 01/15/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
1. 	Procedural Background
On October 24, 2022, Robinson entered a negotiated plea of guilty in the Ashley County
Circuit Court case number 02CR-22-142 to possession of methamphetamine or cocaine with intent
to deliver and to use or possession of paraphernalia to manufacture. He received concurrent
sentences of 96 months on each conviction, followed by 60 months suspended imposition of
sentence. ECF No. 10-1. Because Robinson pleaded guilty, he was not entitled to a direct appeal,
and he did not file one. See Ark. R. App. P. – Crim. 1(a) (stating there is no right to appeal from
an unconditional plea of guilty). In addition, Robinson did not seek postconviction relief in state
court pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1.
On October 25, 2023, Robinson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court,
challenging the above convictions. See Robinson v. Payne, 1:23-cv-1096, ECF No. 1 (W.D. Ark.).
There, he raised four allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. In that case, this Court
determined Robinson’s claims were inexcusably procedurally defaulted and, originally, dismissed
the petition without prejudice. Id., ECF No. 17 (May 20, 2024, Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation); ECF No. 19 (June 18, 2024, order adopting Report and Recommendation).
Dexter Payne filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), Id., ECF No.
20 (June 28, 2024), asserting Robinson’s petition should have been dismissed with prejudice
because the determination his claims were procedurally defaulted qualified as an adjudication on
the merits. See Bannister v. Delo, 100 F.3d 610, 619 n. 8 (8th Cir. 1996). This Court granted Payne’s
Rule 59(e) motion, dismissed the petition with prejudice, and denied a certificate of appealability.
Id., ECF No. 21 (July 9, 2024). Robinson did not seek a Certificate of Appealability from the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Case 1:24-cv-01084-SOH Document 11 Filed 01/15/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Robinson filed the instant Petition on November 19, 2024, claiming he is entitled to “relief
from judgment” from his convictions from case number 02CR-22-142 because he is insane and
suffering from mental disabilities. ECF No. 1, pp. 6-7, 9. Respondent argues this Petition should
be dismissed because Robinson failed to seek permission from the Eighth Circuit before filing the
Petition challenging the same judgment that he previously challenged in his first habeas petition.
ECF No. 10, p. 4.
2. 	Discussion
Under the Anti-Terrorism and Death Penalty Act, Robinson was required to obtain a
certification by a panel of the Eighth Circuit prior to filing this Petition. 	See 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(3)(A) (1996). This provision provides the following: “Before a second or successive
application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the
appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.”
Id. (emphasis added). A petition is “second or successive” if it challenges the same judgment as a
previous habeas petition. Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 331 (2010). A district court lacks
jurisdiction to entertain claims in a second or successive habeas corpus petition for which a
petitioner has not received authorization from a court of appeals, and therefore the claims must be
dismissed. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153, 157 (2007)(per curiam); Nooner v. Norris, 499
F.3d 831, 833 (8th Cir. 2007).
Here, Robinson is challenging the same state court judgment from case 02CR-22-142 that
he previously challenged in his first habeas petition, which this Court dismissed with prejudice.
See Robinson, 1:23-cv-1094, ECF No. 21. Robinson did not seek permission/certification from the
Eighth Circuit before he filed the instant Petition. Without such a certification, this Court has no
jurisdiction over this case. See, e.g., Boykin v. United States, 242 F.3d 373 (8th Cir. 2000)
Case 1:24-cv-01084-SOH Document 11 Filed 01/15/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
(recognizing a district court lacks jurisdiction when the defendant does not first seek a certification
from the applicable court of appeals). Thus, this Petition should be dismissed.
3. 	Conclusion and Recommendation
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is recommended Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
Successive Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 10) be GRANTED, and Robinson’s
Petition for Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) be DENIED. Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a), I
recommend the finding that an appeal from dismissal would not be taken in good faith.
The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The Parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).
DATED this 15th day of January 2025.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-01084-SOH Document 11 Filed 01/15/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>