Hall v. Edwards

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Adelman's Report and Recommendation filed on December 31, 2013 is adopted and sustained in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for the District Judge and Magis trate Judge to Recuse Themselves and Charge of Conspiring with the State of Missouri (#31) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Order Granting Pro Se Status (#29) is DENIED as MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Finality of Determination (#37) is DENIED as MOOT.IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Petiti oner's Motion for Leave to Supplement Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#38) is DENIED as MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. A separate Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum and Order is entered thissame date. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 1/21/2014. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ARIZONA HALL,
Petitioner,
vs.
LEONARD EDWARDS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13CV00556 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Petitioner
Arizona Hall. I referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Terry I. Adelman,
for a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). On
December 31, 2013, Judge Adelman filed his recommendation that Hall’s habeas petition should
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Objections to Judge Adelman’s Report and Recommendation were filed on January 13,
2014. After careful consideration, I will adopt and sustain the thorough reasoning of Judge
Adelman and deny Hall’s habeas petition for the reasons stated in the Report and
Recommendation dated December 31, 2013.
I have also considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. To grant a certificate
of appealability, the Court must find a substantial showing of the denial of a federal
constitutional right. See Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 522 (8th Cir. 1997). A substantial
showing is a showing that issues are debatable among reasonable jurists, a Court could resolve
the issues differently, or the issues deserve further proceedings. Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569
(8th Cir. 1997) (citing Flieger v. Delo, 16 F.3d 878, 882-83 (8th Cir. 1994). Because Sherman

has not made such a showing in this case, I will not issue a certificate of appealability.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Adelman’s Report and Recommendation filed
on December 31, 2013 is adopted and sustained in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for the District
Judge and Magistrate Judge to Recuse Themselves and Charge of Conspiring with the
State of Missouri (#31) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Order Granting Pro Se
Status (#29) is DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Finality of
Determination (#37) is DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Supplement
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#38) is DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
A separate Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum and Order is entered this
same date.

-2-

Dated this 21st day of January, 2014.

______________________________________
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-