Keith Deaton v. Wendy Kelley, No. 16-1925 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Arnold and Benton, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Deaton v. Hobbs, 561 Fed. Appx. 684 (8th Cir. 2014). Deaton's evidence was not sufficient to establish that no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and he failed to meet the demanding actual-innocence standard to toll the expiration of the statute of limitations for his Section 2254 petition.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1925 ___________________________ Keith Allen Deaton lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff ____________ Submitted: May 5, 2017 Filed: May 5, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Following a remand in Deaton v. Hobbs, 561 Fed. Appx. 584 (8th Cir. 2014) (per curiam), the district court1 conducted an evidentiary hearing and afterward 1 The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. concluded that Keith Deaton was unable to meet the demanding actual-innocence standard to toll the expiration of the statute of limitations for his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Accordingly, the district court denied Deaton’s habeas petition as untimely, and he appeals. Because we agree with the district court that Deaton’s evidence was not sufficient to establish that “no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” see McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1928 (2013), we affirm. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
