Gross v. Michaud et al

Filing 10

Minute ORDER granting 9 Motion to Clarify. The amended application that Mr. Gross must file within thirty days from the date of the July 21 minute order must comply with the directives of the June 24 order, i.e., the application must be on the proper, Court-approved form and must comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 08/03/09.(jjh, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 09-cv-01267-BNB DALE GROSS, Applicant, v. DAVID MICHAUD, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondents. MINUTE ORDER ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE BOYD N. BOLAND This matter is before the Court on the motion for clarification submitted to and filed with the Court on July 30, 2009, by Applicant, Dale Gross. The motion for clarification is GRANTED. Mr. Gross clearly does not understand that the requirements listed in the June 24, 2009, order for an amended application are not negotiable. The amended application that Mr. Gross must file within thirty days from the date of the July 21 minute order must comply with the directives of the June 24 order, i.e., the application must be on the proper, Court-approved form and must comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A verbose, amended application that is not self-contained and not on the proper, Court-approved form will not satisfy the requirements of the June 24 order. Mr. Gross's failure to submit within the time allowed an amended application that complies with the directives of the June 24 order, including but not limited to, using the Court-approved 2254 habeas corpus form, will result in the dismissal of the instant action. No further extensions of time or motions for clarification will be granted. Dated: August 3, 2009

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?