Hall v. Edwards

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioners Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners Motion for Leave to Amend Petition (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terry I. Adelman on 5/6/2013. (KMS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ARIZONA HALL,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
LENARD EDWARDS,
Respondent.

No. 4:13CV556 SNLJ
(TIA)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion
for Leave to Amend Petition (Doc. Nos. 11 & 14). The case was referred to the undersigned
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
On March 22, 2013, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, raising four
grounds for habeas relief. He filed an Amended Petition on April 1, 2013, again raising four claims.
On April 18, 2013, Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition, reiterating the claims in his previous
petitions. Petitioner then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion for Leave to Amend
Petitioner, raising the same claims and arguments as those contained in his previous pleadings.
The undersigned finds that a motion for summary judgment is not the proper vehicle to
determine the merits of the petition. Bauer v. Gonzales, No. 06-1763 (JRT/FLN), 2006 WL
2735460, at *3 (D. Minn. Sept. 25, 2006). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be applied only
where the rules are not inconsistent with statutory provision under the rules of habeas corpus. See
Rule 12 of Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), “a district court shall
entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court . . .” At this point, the Respondent has not had adequate time to respond

to the Petitions. The undersigned will deny Petitioner’s summary judgment motion but will consider
the arguments contained in the motion when Court entertains the application for a writ of habeas
corpus as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In addition, the Court will deny Petitioner’s most recent
motion to file an amended petition. Review of that motion indicates that it is merely redundant of the
3 previous petitions. However, the Court will also consider the arguments once the application for
a writ of habeas corpus is ripe for review.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 11)
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Amend Petition (Doc.
No. 14) is DENIED.

/s/ Terry I. Adelman
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this

6th day of May, 2013.

2