Pinson v. Davis

Filing 5

ORDER to File Preliminary Response, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 1/4/12. (lsw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02955-BNB
JEREMY PINSON,
Applicant,
v.
BLAKE DAVIS,
Respondent.

ORDER TO FILE PRELIMINARY RESPONSE

Applicant, Jeremy Pinson, is a prisoner in the custody of the United States
Bureau of Prisons, who currently is incarcerated at the ADX in Florence, Colorado. Mr.
Pinson initiated this action by filing an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas Action. Mr. Pinson has been granted leave
to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
As part of the preliminary consideration of the Application in this case and
pursuant to Keck v. Hartley, 550 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (D. Colo. 2008), the Court has
determined that a limited Preliminary Response is appropriate. Respondent is directed
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts to file a Preliminary Response limited to addressing the affirmative
defense of exhaustion of administrative remedies. If Respondent does not intend to
raise this affirmative defense, Respondent must notify the Court of that decision in the
Preliminary Response. Respondent may not file a dispositive motion as a Preliminary

Response, or an Answer, or otherwise address the merits of the claims in response to
this Order.
In support of the Preliminary Response, Respondent should attach as exhibits all
relevant portions of the administrative record, including but not limited to copies of all
documents demonstrating whether Applicant has exhausted administrative remedies.
Applicant may reply to the Preliminary Response and provide any information
that might be relevant to the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
The Court also notes that Mr. Pinson is challenging Incident Report No. 1619674,
which is the same incident report he challenges in Pinson v. Davis, No. 11-cv-01334WYD (D. Colo. Filed May 20, 2011). Mr. Pinson and Respondent are instructed to
address why the repetitive claim should not be dismissed as abusive and malicious.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that within twenty-one days from the date of this Order
Respondent shall file a Preliminary Response that complies with this Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that within twenty-one days of the filing of the
Preliminary Response Applicant may file a Reply, if he desires. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Respondent does not intend to raise the affirmative
defense of exhaustion of administrative remedies, Respondent must notify the Court of
that decision in the Preliminary Response.
DATED January 4, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
2

3