Gravley v. Warden

Filing 3

ORDER Directing Applicant to File Amended Application, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 5/28/13. (nmmsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-01346-BNB
DWAUNE J. GRAVLEY, SR.,
Applicant,
v.
WARDEN, United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum Facility,
Florence, Colorado, and
BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Respondents.

ORDER DIRECTING APPLICANT TO FILE AMENDED APPLICATION

Applicant, Dwaune J. Gravley, Sr., is a prisoner in the custody of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons who currently is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary,
Administrative Maximum (ADX). He filed pro se on May 23, 2013, a document titled
“Cumulatively Denied Due[:] Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Newly
Discovered Evidence; Requesting Evidentiary Hearing; Perjury: Prosecutorial
Misconduct: Requesting Mr. Gravley be released to General Population; Violation of
Due Process; Insufficient Evidence; Destruction of Exculpatory/Material Evidence” (ECF
No. 1). He has paid the $5.00 filing fee for a habeas corpus action.
The Court must construe the document liberally because Mr. Gravley is a pro se
litigant. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). The Court, however, should not act as a pro se litigant’s
advocate. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, Mr. Gravley will

be ordered to file an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 on the proper, Court-approved form.
The document Mr. Gravley submitted to the Court on May 23, which the Court
will construe liberally as a habeas corpus application, is unnecessarily wordy, vague,
and confusing. Mr. Gravley asserts ten claims, asks for expungement of his disciplinary
conviction, release to general population from the ADX lockdown facility, and money
damages, which are unavailable through a habeas corpus action. It is not clear whether
Mr. Gravley is attacking his disciplinary conviction, his original conviction and sentence
in Criminal Action No. 09-cr-13 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Kentucky, or both. He may only challenge one or the other in the instant action.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to applications for habeas corpus
relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(2); Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S.
257, 269 (1978); Ewing v. Rodgers, 826 F.2d 967, 969-70 (10th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a pleading “must contain (1) a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for the relief sought.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1) provides that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and
direct.” Taken together, Rules 8(a) and (d)(1) underscore the emphasis placed on
clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules. Prolix, vague, or unintelligible pleadings
violate the requirements of Rule 8.
Furthermore, pursuant to Rules 2(c)(1) and 2(c)(2) of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (Section 2254 Rules), Mr.
Gravley must "specify all [available] grounds for relief" and he must "state the facts
2

supporting each ground." Rule 1(b) of the Section 2254 Rules applies those rules to the
instant action. These habeas corpus rules are more demanding than the rules
applicable to ordinary civil actions, which require only notice pleading. See Mayle v.
Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005). Naked allegations of constitutional violations are not
cognizable under § 2254. See Ruark v. Gunter, 958 F.2d 318, 319 (10th Cir. 1992) (per
curiam). Therefore, the amended application Mr. Gravley will be directed to file must
allege in a clear and concise manner both the § 2241 claims he seeks to raise and the
specific facts to support each asserted claim.
In addition, the only proper respondent to a habeas corpus action is the
applicant's custodian. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rules 2(a) and 1(b), Section 2254 Rules;
Harris v. Champion, 51 F.3d 901, 906 (10th Cir. 1995). Therefore, the Federal Bureau
of Prisons is not a proper party to this action.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that within thirty days from the date of this order Applicant,
Dwaune J. Gravley, Sr., file an amended application that complies with this order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Gravley shall obtain the Court-approved form for
filing an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (with the
assistance of his case manager or the facility’s legal assistant), along with the
applicable instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov, and shall use that form in submitting
the amended application. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Mr. Gravley fails within the time allowed to file an
amended application as directed, the action will be dismissed without further notice.
DATED May 28, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
3

BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

4