Case Explained: Hall v. Miller, et al.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-17 Docket: 5:25-CV-00518-JD) The Tenth Circuit denied Michael Amir Hall’s request for a certificate of appealability (COA) and dismissed his appeal from the district court’s order dismissing his federal habeas corpus petition as time-barred. While the court granted Hall’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, it concluded that he failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right required under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court applied the standard from *Slack v. McDaniel*, which requires a habeas petitioner to demonstrate that “jurists of reason would find it debatable” both whether the petition states a valid claim and whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. The district court had dismissed Hall’s petition based on two procedural grounds: the “firm-waiver rule,” because his objections to the magistrate judge’s report were conclusory and unspecific, and the statute of limitations, finding his petition untimely and equitable tolling inapplicable. Regarding the firm-waiver rule, the court held that Hall failed to show plain error or satisfy the “interests of justice” exception because his arguments regarding the timeliness of his habeas filing did not address the specific defects in his objections to the magistrate’s report. Furthermore, even if the exception applied, his objections remained too vague to focus the district court on disputed issues. Regarding equitable tolling, the court found Hall failed to meet the two-prong test established in *McQuiggin v. Perkins*: he did not diligently pursue his rights given the 202 days available to him before a prison lockdown began, and a prison lockdown alone does not constitute an “extraordinary circumstance” sufficient to toll the statute of limitations absent additional proof that it prevented timely filing. Consequently, no reasonable jurist could debate the correctness of the district court’s procedural rulings. The practical consequence is that Hall’s appeal is terminated, his habeas petition remains dismissed with prejudice, and he receives no relief on his constitutional claims regarding probable cause hearings. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.