Barton v. Payne

United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division · June 27, 2025 · No. 4:25-cv-00309-BSM-PSH

Summary

This document is a Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation in a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Frederick Barton under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petitioner challenges his state court guilty pleas, probation revocation sentence, and ongoing sex offender registration requirements. The undersigned recommends dismissal on the grounds that the petition is time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that the claims are procedurally barred due to failure to exhaust state court remedies. A certificate of appealability is also recommended for denial.

Court
United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division
Jurisdiction
United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas
Decision date
June 27, 2025
Docket number
4:25-cv-00309-BSM-PSH
Procedural posture
Petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254 filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Precedential value
unpublished
Parties
Frederick Barton v. Dexter Payne
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

habeas corpuspost-conviction relief

Practice areas

criminal procedurepost-conviction relief

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the petition is timely under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d) limitations period
  2. Whether Barton satisfies the custodial requirement of 28 U.S.C. §2254
  3. Whether equitable tolling applies to excuse the untimely filing
  4. Whether procedural default bars the claims
  5. Whether the actual‑innocence exception applies

Holdings

  1. The one‑year limitations period began in November 2009 when the amended judgment was filed; Barton filed in March 2025, so the petition is untimely and must be dismissed.
  2. Barton failed to present the claims to the Arkansas state courts, establishing procedural default; he offered no cause or actual‑innocence showing, so the claims are procedurally barred.
  3. Equitable tolling does not apply because Barton was not diligent and no extraordinary circumstance existed.
  4. Barton did not show new evidence that would demonstrate actual innocence; the exception does not apply.

Key quotations

The one‑year statute of limitations may be equitable tolled ‘only if [the movant] shows “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way” and prevented timely filing.’ (at 1195)

Factual background

Barton pleaded guilty in January 2006 to a reduced charge of sexual indecency and was sentenced to probation with a sex‑offender registration requirement. He later violated probation, pleaded guilty in August 2008, and served a sixty‑month sentence. In June 2023 he pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender and received a thirty‑six‑month sentence.

Procedural history

Barton filed a habeas petition in March 2025 challenging his 2006 guilty plea, his sex‑offender registration requirement, and his 2008 plea for probation violation. The district court considered jurisdiction, the one‑year limitations period, and procedural default.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…