Hall v. Litteral et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) The Court's September 5, 2019 Order [DE 15 ] and Judgment [DE 16] are VACATED; (2) Petitioner Roger Dean Hall's motion construed as a motion to alter, amend, or vacate a judgment [DE 19 ] is GRANTED IN PART, insofar as it argues that Hall did timely file his objection to the report and recommendation; (3) Petitioner Roger Dean Hall's motion for leave to supplement or amend his objection [DE 17 ] is GRANTED; and (4) The Clerk SHALL enter Pe titioner Roger Dean Hall's supplement to his objection [DE 18] in the record. Motions terminated: 18 MOTION for Leave by Roger Dean Hall filed by Roger ean Hall, 19 MOTION to Amend/Correct by Roger Dean Hall filed by Roger Dean Hall. Case reopened.(RBB)cc: COR, 6CCA Robin Johnson Case Manager; paper copy to Roger Dean Hall, via US Mail. Modified on 12/19/2019 (RBB).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION at LONDON
ROGER DEAN HALL,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
JAMES DAVID GREEN, Warden of
)
Eastern Kentucky Correctional )
Complex,
)
)
Respondent.

Case No.
6:17-cv-197-JMH-CJS
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER

***
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Roger Dean
Hall’s motion to amend, alter, or vacate the final judgment1 [DE
16] and order [DE 15] entered in this case on September 5, 2019.
[DE 19]. Additionally, the Court will address Hall’s motion to for
leave to supplement his objection to the Magistrate Judge’s report
and recommendation in this case. For the reasons set forth below,
the Court will grant both of Hall’s motions.

“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed.” Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)(internal citations omitted). The
Court will construe this motion as one to alter, amend, or vacate
a judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
Hall’s motion is titled “motion for court to correct fundamentally
incorrect order as filed on 09/05/19, objection to court’s order,
and the facts relied upon therein.” Because Hall asks the Court to
consider his objections to the report and recommendation in this
case, he is requesting that the final judgment in the matter be
vacated.
1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Hall is an inmate at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex
in West Liberty, Kentucky. [DE 1]. Hall filed a petition for writ
of habeas corpus on July 14, 2017 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
[DE 1]. He alleged that his state-imposed sentence violated new
Kentucky case law and provisions of the United States Constitution.
On August 20, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Candace J. Smith
filed a report and recommendation in the matter pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). [DE 20]. The report proposed that Hall’s petition
be dismissed for failure to meet the applicable statutes of
limitations and found that, regardless of any time bar, Hall’s
claims also failed on the merits. [Id.].
Sixteen days later, on September 5, 2019, this Court entered
an order and judgment adopting Magistrate Judge Smith’s report.
[DE 16]. The memorandum opinion and order stated that the report
was ripe for a ruling because Hall failed to file an objection.
[DE 15 at 1]. On that same day, the Clerk entered Hall’s objection
to

Magistrate

Judge

Smith’s

report,

which

was

postmarked

on

September 3, 2019. [DE 17]. On September 9, 2019 (filed September
17, 2019), Hall’s motion for leave to submit additional facts and
authorities in support of his objection was postmarked. [DE 18].
On September 18, 2019, the Court received from Hall a “motion
for the court to correct a fundamentally incorrect order.” [DE
19]. Hall argued that he did timely file an objection on September
2

3, 2019, which was entered by the Clerk on September 5, 2019. [Id.
at 1-2]. He attached the “Legal Mail Log Record,” which shows that
he submitted the document into that system on August 30, 2019. [DE
19-1 at 4-5]. Additionally, Hall points out that the Court’s order
refers to him in one instance as “Combs” instead of Hall. [Id. at
2].
Hall filed a notice of appeal on September 18, 2019. [DE 20].
On September 19, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit entered a notice that the case would be held in
abeyance until this Court ruled on the pending motions in the case.
[DE 22]. On October 9, 2019, Hall filed a motion for leave to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. [DE 24].
DISCUSSION
A. Motion to alter, amend, or vacate the order and judgment
Hall’s primary complaint is the Court’s finding that he did
not file a timely objection to the report and recommendation.
Regrettably, the Court relied on the date the objection was filed
with the Clerk’s office and failed to consider the prisoner mailbox
rule and its implications on Hall’s filing.
The prisoner mailbox rule is a judicially created doctrine
requiring federal courts to use as the filing date the day the
document is handed to prison officials for transmittal to the
Clerk. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988). Additionally,
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
3

District Courts § 3(d) states: “A paper filed by an inmate confined
in an institution is timely if deposited in the institution’s
internal mailing system on or before the last day for filing.” If
the institution where the prisoner resides has a system designed
for legal mail, the inmate must use that system to receive the
benefit of the prisoner mailbox rule. Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases § 3(d). Local Rule 72.2 states that objections to nondispositive rulings of a magistrate judge must be filed within
fourteen days of service of the order.
Although it is unclear when Hall received the report and
recommendation, if he was served on August 20,2 his objection was
still timely. He submitted the objection to the prison’s legalmail system on August 30, 2019, well within the fourteen-day
deadline. [DE 19-1 at 4]. The objection was postmarked on September
3, 2019, still within the fourteen days. Considering the prison
mailbox rule and the local rules of the Eastern District of
Kentucky, Hall did timely file his objection to Magistrate Judge
Smith’s report and recommendation.
A motion to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e) should be granted only where “there is a

It seems unlikely that Hall would have received service of the
report and recommendation on August 20, 2019. Even if Hall failed
to file the objection until September 4 or September 5, the
prisoner mailbox rule would likely protect his filing based on the
actual date he was served with the report and recommendation.
2

4

clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening
change in controlling law, or to prevent manifest injustice.”
GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th
Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). Here, the Court admits
clear error of law by failing to apply the prisoner mailbox rule.
Thus, the order and judgment must be vacated.
B. Motion for leave to supplement
As a general rule, leave to amend is liberally granted, except
when the amendment would be futile. Frank v. D’Ambrosi, 4 F.3d
1378, 1386 (6th Cir. 1993); Newell v. Brown, 981 F.2d 880 (6th
Cir.

1992).

relating

to

Hall
the

includes
report

additional

and

case

recommendation

law
in

and
his

arguments
motion

to

supplement or amend the objection he filed. In its discretion, the
Court will allow Hall to supplement his objection in the record.
Having

considered

the

matter

fully,

and

being

otherwise

sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) The Court’s September 5, 2019 Order [DE 15] and Judgment
[DE 16] are VACATED;
(2) Petitioner Roger Dean Hall’s motion construed as a motion
to alter, amend, or vacate a judgment [DE 19] is GRANTED IN PART,
insofar as it argues that Hall did timely file his objection to
the report and recommendation;
(3)

Petitioner

Roger

Dean

Hall’s

motion

for

leave

supplement or amend his objection [DE 1 ] is GRANTED; and
5

to

(4)

The

Clerk

SHALL

enter

Petitioner

Roger

supplement to his objection [DE 18] in the record.
This the 19th day of December, 2019.

6

Dean

Hall’s