Hall v. Miller

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

MICHAEL AMIR HALL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Case No. CIV-25-00518-JD

)

MICHAEL MILLER, Warden, and )

ALLEN GAMBLE CORRECTIONAL, )

)

Respondents. )

ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”) issued by United

States Magistrate Judge Amanda L. Maxfield on July 7, 2025. [Doc. No. 8]. For the

reasons outlined below, the Court accepts the R. & R. and dismisses the petition with

prejudice.

Petitioner Michael Amir Hall (“Petitioner”) initiated this habeas action under 28

U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. Nos. 1, 6]. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court referred

the case to Judge Maxfield for preliminary review. [Doc. No. 4]. Judge Maxfield

performed preliminary screening of the case. [Doc. No. 8 at 1–2].1 The R. & R.

recommends dismissing Petitioner’s petition as time-barred. [Id. at 1].

The R. & R. concluded that Petitioner did not timely file his habeas petition. [Id. at

6–7]. The R. & R. also concluded that “Petitioner has not argued that equitable tolling

should apply, nor has he alleged extraordinary circumstances suggesting that equitable

1 In this Order, the Court uses page numbering from the CM/ECF stamp at the top

of the filing on the district court docket.

tolling is appropriate.” [Id. at 7]. In light of these conclusions, the R. & R. also

recommends denying Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Proceedings So Petitioner Can Exhaust

State Remedies as moot. [Id.].

The R. & R. advised Petitioner of his right to object by July 28, 2025, and warned

that failure to file a timely objection would waive the right to appellate review of the

factual and legal issues in the R. & R. [Id. at 8]. Petitioner timely objected to the R. & R.

[Doc. No. 9].

“[A] party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must

be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or

for appellate review.” United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir.

1996). A specific objection “enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues—

factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” Id. at 1059. The Court

reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the R. & R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A

judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). When an

objection is improper (objections that are not timely or specific), the Court may review

the R. & R. under any standard it deems appropriate. Cisneros v. Gomez, No. CIV-21-

825-PRW, 2023 WL 2543435, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 16, 2023) (citing Summers v.

Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167–68 (10th Cir. 1991)); cf. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d at 1060–61

(explaining that the district court’s decision to conduct a de novo review “does not

warrant lifting the bar of appellate review”). The Court will construe Petitioner’s

objections liberally because he is proceeding pro se, but the Court cannot serve as

Petitioner’s advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).

Petitioner does not object to the R. & R. on any specific factual or legal grounds.

[See Doc. No. 9]. Instead, Petitioner presents a conclusory objection and requests that the

Court stay the proceedings so that he may exhaust his remedies in state court or dismiss

the petition without prejudice so that he can amend the petition to include grounds he

failed to include in this petition. [Id. at 1]. Because Petitioner does not make a specific

objection to any of the R. & R.’s findings or legal recommendations, Petitioner has not

preserved any issue for de novo review by this Court or for appellate review. See 2121 E.

30th St., 73 F.3d at 1060. Petitioner has not focused the Court’s attention on any findings

or recommendations made by Judge Maxfield regarding the background of his

proceedings or calculations regarding timeliness of his federal petition under AEDPA or

tolling. Under these circumstances, the waiver rule applies, and the interests of justice do

not warrant review.

Alternatively, even if Petitioner’s objection were to require additional review by

this Court, under a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes Judge Maxfield

correctly determined that Petitioner did not timely file his habeas petition and that his

petition is untimely and not subject to equitable tolling. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544

U.S. 408, 418 (2005) (holding the litigant seeking equitable tolling bears the burden).

Accordingly, staying the case to allow Petitioner to exhaust his administrative remedies

would be futile, and the R. & R. correctly recommends that the Court deny Petitioner’s

Motion to Stay Proceedings So Petitioner Can Exhaust State Remedies as moot.

Under Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court must

issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to a

petitioner. A certificate of appealability may issue only if Petitioner “has made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

“When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching

the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a [certificate of appealability] should issue

when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether

the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural

ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Upon consideration, the Court

finds this standard is not met. See id. at 484-85. Because Petitioner has not made the

required showing, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

For the reasons outlined above, the Court ACCEPTS the R. & R. and DISMISSES

Petitioner’s petition with prejudice.” The Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to Stay

Proceedings So Petitioner Can Exhaust State Remedies [Doc. No. 7] as moot. The Court

DENIES a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of September 2025.

ei W. DISHMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 See Taylor v. Martin, 757 F.3d 1122, 1123 (10th Cir. 2014) (denying a certificate

of appealability and dismissing the appeal where the district court dismissed with

prejudice untimely § 2254 habeas petition); see also McDowell v. Zavaras, 417 F. App’x

755, 756-57 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (explaining that a habeas petition “denied as

time-barred” is “‘a dismissal . . . on the merits’’) (citing cases); Brown v. Roberts, 177 F.

App’x 774, 778 (10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (“Dismissal of a petition as time barred

operates as a dismissal with prejudice.”’).