Case Name: Arizona HALL Petitioner-Appellant v. Josh HAWLEY, Missouri Attorney General Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-19
Citations: 691 F. App'x 285
Docket Number: No. 17-1090
Parties: Arizona HALL Petitioner-Appellant v. Josh HAWLEY, Missouri Attorney General Respondent-Appellee
Judges: Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 285–286

Head Matter:
Arizona HALL Petitioner-Appellant v. Josh HAWLEY, Missouri Attorney General Respondent-Appellee
No. 17-1090
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June 13, 2017
Filed: June 19, 2017
Arizona Hall, Pro Se
Stephen David Hawke, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent-Appel-lee
Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
On March 2, 2016, Arizona Hall filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. He cited, among other statutes, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 2254, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and he claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and suffered due process violations in proceedings underlying two separate criminal convictions that he incurred in 2013. Mr. Hall sought habeas corpus relief, discharge of his convictions and sentences, and restitution. The district court instructed Mr. Hall to file an amended complaint raising only his civil rights claims, and directed the court clerk to send him a section 2254 form to use if he wished to file a separate habeas petition. See Hall v. State, No. 4:16-cv-00291-CDP, 2016 WL 4720457 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 9, 2016) (Hall 1).
Two weeks later Mr. Hall filed a section 2254 petition challenging both 2013 convictions; the court directed him to file an amended petition addressing only one conviction, and Mr. Hall complied. Thereafter, the court ordered Mr. Hall to show cause as to why the amended petition should not be dismissed as untimely. Attaching a copy of his Hall 1 filing, Mr, Hall argued that his claims were timely because he had first raised them before the limitations period expired. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely.
Upon careful review, we note that the district court did not discuss whether the claims in the amended petition relate back to those raised in Hall 1, which appears to have been filed within the limitations period. See Dodd v. United States, 614 F.3d 512, 515 (8th Cir. 2010) (claims in amended habeas petition relate back to original petition when they arise out of "same conduct, transaction, or occurrence" set forth in original petition and are tied to "common core of operative facts"). We vacate the order of dismissal and remand for the district court to consider the relation-back issue and — if the petition is deemed timely — the merits of Mr. Hall's claims, including any procedural default. We express no opinion on these questions.