Hall v. Koster

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to send petitioner a § 2254 form. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner must fill out the § 2254 form in compliance with this Memorandum and Order a nd return it to the Court within twenty one (21) days of the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent's motion to dismiss 12 is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motions to update case caption 11 , motio n for evidentiary hearing or in the alternative motion for judgment on the pleadings 14 , motion for judicial notice 15 , and second motion for judgment on the pleadings 16 are denied. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 8/3/2017. (Form and order mailed to petitioner this date.)(CBL)

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
vs.
JOSHUA D. HAWLEY,
Respondent.

Case No. 4:16 CV 1739 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Respondent moves to dismiss this case in part because he argues that petitioner
previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his 2013 convictions for
assault and unlawful possession of a firearm, which was denied as untimely in Hall v.
Koster, 4:16CV1528 AGF (E.D. Mo. Dec. 22, 2016). [Doc. # 14). Respondent’s motion
to dismiss will be denied as the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of
petitioner’s habeas petition in that case on June 19, 2017. [Doc. # 25]. The mandate
issued on July 10, 2017. [Doc. # 27].
Moreover, respondent is mistaken that the conviction at issue in Case Number
4:16CV1528 AGF is the same conviction being challenged in the instant case. While it is
true that, at one time petitioner did attempt to challenge both convictions in Case Number
4:16CV1528 AGF, petitioner was instructed by the Court on October 18, 2016, that he
may only challenge one judgment in a habeas petition and was therefore instructed to file
an amended petition in case 4:16CV1528 AGF addressing only one of his cases and to
file a separate petition (i.e., the instant case), to challenge the second judgment. [Doc.
#5]. Petitioner complied with that Memorandum and Order by amending his petition in

4:16CV1528 AGF to challenge his domestic assault conviction. [Doc. #6]. He then filed
the instant petition to challenge his judgment for unlawful possession of a firearm. Case
Number 4:16CV1739 CDP. [Doc. #1]. Therefore, this case is not a successive habeas
petition as erroneously argued by respondent, nor did the Court conclude in Case Number
4:16CV1528 AGF that petitioner’s habeas petition challenging his conviction for
unlawful possession of a firearm was untimely filed.
The only conviction being challenged in this case is petitioner’s 2013 judgment in
Criminal Case number 1022-CR-049750-01 for unlawful possession of a firearm.
However, because petitioner’s petition does include references to his conviction for
domestic assault (which is at issue in Case Number 4:16CV1528 AGF), I will direct
petitioner to file an amended habeas petition addressing only his conviction for unlawful
possession of a firearm. Petitioner shall delete any references in his amended petition to
his domestic assault conviction. I will then require respondent to show cause why the
relief requested in petitioner’s amended habeas petition should not be granted. That
Order will require respondent to file a substantive response to the merits of the petition in
addition to raising any arguments relating to timeliness.
Petitioner’s pending motions are meritless and will be denied. Petitioner can
request an evidentiary hearing if he so chooses upon the filing of his amended habeas
petition.
Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to send petitioner a § 2254
form.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner must fill out the § 2254 form in
compliance with this Memorandum and Order and return it to the Court within twentyone (21) days of the date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent’s motion to dismiss [12] is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motions to update case caption
[11], motion for evidentiary hearing or in the alternative motion for judgment on the
pleadings [14], motion for judicial notice [15], and second motion for judgment on the
pleadings [16] are denied.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 3rd day of August, 2017.

3