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

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-