United States District Court, D. Maine
JOEL A. HAYDEN Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN, MAINE STATE PRISON, Defendant.
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 ...