Hayden v. Warden, Maine State Prison

          ORDER ON LETTER/MOTION TO CORRECT AND CLARIFY

          JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         A petitioner in a habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 moves the Court to order a correction in his objections to a recommended decision to accurately quote the state judge during jury selection. However, the parties have not filed a transcript of the jury selection with the Court and therefore the Court is unable to verify the accuracy of the quotation. The Court orders the parties to file a transcript of jury selection and, if a transcript has not been prepared, the Court orders the Warden to obtain and file a transcript of jury selection. Noting that the petitioner's objection seems to end in mid-sentence, the Court sua sponte orders the petitioner to file a complete copy of his objection.

         I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On October 10, 2018, Joel A. Hayden filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody, which was docketed on October 17, 2018.^[1] Pet. Under 28 U.S.C § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (ECF No. 1) (Pet.). On October 15, 2018, Mr. Hayden filed an addendum to his petition, which was docketed on October 29, 2018. Pet.'s Addendum Supplementing the Pet. for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 7). On October 23, 2018, the Magistrate Judge ordered the Attorney General for the state of Maine to answer the petition. Order to Answer (ECF No. 6). On December 18, 2018, the Attorney General filed an answer. Resp't's Answer to Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 8) (Resp.'t's Answer). On February 20, 2019, Mr. Hayden filed a reply, which was docketed on March 4, 2019. Pet.'s Reply to Resp't's Answer to Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 14). On March 20, 2019, Mr. Hayden filed a motion to substitute “Warden, Maine State Prison” as defendant in place of Randall Liberty, which was docketed on March 28, 2019. Mot. to Substitute Party (ECF No. 17). The Magistrate Judge granted this motion on March 28, 2019. Order Granting Mot. to Substitute Party (ECF No. 18).

         On July 24, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommended decision recommending the denial of Mr. Hayden's Petition. Recommended Decision on 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Pet. (ECF No. 21). On August 21, 2019, Mr. Hayden filed a motion to correct his objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommended decision, which had not yet been received by the Court. Letter/Mot. to Correct Objs. (ECF No. 26). The Clerk docketed this motion on August 26, 2019. Id. On September 27, 2019, Mr.

         Hayden timely filed his objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommended decision, which were docketed on October 4, 2019.^[2] Pet.'s Objs. On October 11, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued an order granting Mr. Hayden's motion to correct his objections. Order Granting Mot. to Amend (ECF No. 30). On October 17, 2019, Mr. Hayden filed a motion to correct and clarify his objections, which was docketed on October 24, 2019. Letter/Mot. to Correct and Clarify (ECF No. 31) (Pet.'s Mot.). It is this Letter/Motion to Correct and Clarify that is the subject of the Court's order.

         II. THE PETITIONER'S MOTION

         In his § 2254 Petition, Mr. Hayden, a person of color, raised questions about whether the state trial court judge properly applied Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) during jury selection after defense counsel objected to the selection on the basis of race. Pet. at 6. In his original objection dated October 4, 2019, Mr. Hayden quoted the state judge during jury selection as saying:

So your uncertainty in regard to that question, does not have any affect on your ability to listen to the law and evidence and render a fair verdict in this case.

Pet.'s Objs. at 20. (quoting Jury Sel. pg. 64) (emphasis in original). Mr. Hayden says that the juror answered “NO” and “I think it actually says the opposite . . ..” Id. (emphasis in original).

         In his motion to correct, Mr. Hayden states that he misquoted the judge in his original petition and the correct quotation reads:

So your uncertainty in regard to that question, does that have any affect on your ability to listen to the law and evidence and render a fair verdict in this case?

Id., Attach. 1 (Corrected Page 20) (quoting Jury Sel. pg. 64) (underlining in Pet'r's Mot.). Again, he says that the juror answered “No” and “I think it actually says the opposite . . ..” Id.

         Mr. Hayden seeks to correct a quotation he included in his objections, which he states he misquoted by “chang[ing] the question into a statement.” Pet.'s Mot. at 1. Additionally, in order to “accomplish the correction, and put the entire argument into proper context, ” Mr. Hayden has rewritten the page on which the alleged misquotation appears ...