Pinson v. Berkebile

Filing 5

ORDER Directing Applicant To File Amended Application, by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 07/30/13. (nmmsl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 13-cv-01953-BNB JEREMY PINSON, Applicant, v. DAVID BERKEBILE, Respondent. ORDER DIRECTING APPLICANT TO FILE AMENDED APPLICATION Applicant, Jeremy Pinson, is a prisoner in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons, who currently is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado. Applicant, acting pro se, filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court must construe the Application liberally because Applicant 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, Applicant will be ordered to file an Amended Application. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts requires that Mr. Young go beyond notice pleading. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977). The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases apply to § 2241 actions. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 1(b). Naked allegations of constitutional violations devoid of factual support are not cognizable in a federal habeas action. See Ruark v. Gunter, 958 F.2d 318, 319 (10th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Mr. Young must allege on the Court-approved form both the claims he seeks to raise and the specific facts to support each asserted claim. The Court has reviewed the Application submitted to the Court on July 22, 2013, and finds that it is deficient. Applicant fails to identify the incident report number for each disciplinary action that he is challenging. Therefore, Applicant will be ordered to file an Amended Application, on a Court-approved form, that includes each incident report number and states how his rights were violated in each of the associated disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that within thirty days from the date of this Order Applicant file an Amended Application that complies with the Order. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Applicant shall obtain the Court-approved form used in filing 28 U.S.C. § 2241 actions (with the assistance of his case manager or the facility’s legal assistant), along with the applicable instructions, at It is FURTHER ORDERED that if Applicant fails within the time allowed to file an Amended Application, as directed above, the action will be dismissed without further notice. DATED July 30, 2013, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT: s/Craig B. Shaffer United States Magistrate Judge 2

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?