Hale v. Harm

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM & ORDER: Hale has now filed a motion, styled as an emergency petition to appeal the Court's October 22, 2020, Order, which seeks "a sentence reduction that is equal to an immediate release" due to the COVID-19 pandemic. [ Record No. 9] The Court has denied similar motions from Hale multiple times, and it will do so again here. The Court will construe Hale's filing as a motion for reconsideration of the Court's October 22, 2020, Order. Hale asks the Court to waive "the state court remedy requirement" due to a COVID-19 outbreak at Bell County Forestry Camp. [Record No. 9 , p. 1] ORDERED that Hale's motion [Record No. 9] is DENIED. Motions terminated: 9 MOTION for Order by Derrick K. Hale filed by Derrick K. Hale. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 11/19/2020.(RBB)cc: COR and Derrick K. Hale by US Mail

Download PDF
Case: 6:20-cv-00211-DCR-MAS Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/19/20 Page: 1 of 2 - Page ID#: 90 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION (at London) DERRICK K. HALE, Petitioner, v. BRANDY HARM, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 6: 20-211-DCR MEMORANDUM ORDER *** *** *** *** Petitioner Derrick K. Hale is a convicted state prisoner incarcerated at the Bell County Forestry Camp in Pineville, Kentucky. The Court previously dismissed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because it failed to state a cognizable claim and failed to demonstrate exhaustion of state remedies. [Record No. 6] Undeterred, Hale has now filed a motion, styled as an emergency petition to appeal the Court’s October 22, 2020, Order, which seeks “a sentence reduction that is equal to an immediate release” due to the COVID-19 pandemic. [Record No. 9] The Court has denied similar motions from Hale multiple times, and it will do so again here. The Court will construe Hale’s filing as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s October 22, 2020, Order. Hale asks the Court to waive “the state court remedy requirement” due to a COVID-19 outbreak at Bell County Forestry Camp. [Record No. 9, p. 1] But even if the Court waived that requirement, Hale has still not stated a cognizable claim. State challenges to conditions of confinement are properly brought as § 1983 actions, not habeas petitions. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973). As he has been informed multiple -1- Case: 6:20-cv-00211-DCR-MAS Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/19/20 Page: 2 of 2 - Page ID#: 91 times, Hale cannot be granted the relief he seeks in this proceeding. If he wishes to raise an Eighth Amendment claim, he must do so in a civil rights action, and if he wishes to receive a sentence reduction, or some other form of emergency relief, he should request it from a state court or state officials. Hale’s concerns are understandable, but he has simply chosen the wrong path to relief. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Hale’s motion [Record No. 9] is DENIED. Dated: November 19, 2020.   -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?